{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1681","title":"Court filings concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance and ADE's interrogatories to LRSD and NLRSD","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","North Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance and ADE's interrogatories to LRSD and NLRSD"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1681"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, the districts' brief in response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, supplemental submission by the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) interrogatories to Little Rock School District (LRSD) re: teacher retirement/health insurance remedies; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) interrogatories to North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) re: teacher retirement/health insurance remedies; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,  Plaintiff,  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARt\u003cANSAS AUG t O 1998 JAMES o/ ~MACK. CLERK By: LI U.,(\\,1\\/\\j 1\\, OEP CLERK vs.  No. LR-C-82-866  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.,  Defendants,   MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.,  lntervenors,   KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al.,  Intervenors.  ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Arkansas Department of Education ( ADEj requesting a second extension of time to and including August 19, 1998 in which to file reply briefs to the opening briefs previously submitted regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement remedy issues. 'The ADE states in its motion that counsel for the Llttle Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCssn), and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) do not object to and join the ADE in this motion. As this Court noted for the record in its prior Order granting the parties' first request for an extension of time to file reply briefs, although the F.ighth Circuit Court of Appeals has released its opinion regarding the health insurance and teacher retirement remedy issues, the mandate from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding this opinion has not issued. Therefore, it is not clear that this Court has jurisdiction to require the parties to brief these issues at this time. Because the parties are in agreement regarding the briefing schedule and the proposed extension, - this Court will grant the ADE's request. The parties have to and including August 19, 1998 in which to file their reply briefs. .,,.. . . }3 i1 8 2 ~ IT IS SO ORDERED TillS /0 day of August 1998. QL.\u0026~ UNITED STATES Dis JUDGE 2  . , .JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE Ot DESE6REGATION MON1TOR1N6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S BRIEF CONCERNING REMEDIES-ON THE ISSUES OF TEACHER RETIREMENT '  AND HEAL TH INSURANCE On July 20, 1998, the Districts and ADE submitted briefs outlining their positions - 6~ -the appropriate way to calculate a remedy for the Court's finding that the State breached the Settlement Agreement when it changed the manner in which school .district employee retirement and health insurance obligations were funded. After having reviewed ADE' s submission, LRSD and NLRSD advised this Court that they believe \"ADE' s -submission seems to present an acceptable method of calculating the remedy which is consistent with the decisions of this court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.\" Neither LRSD nor NLRSD submitted a proposed remedy of their own. This Court is now presented with two proposals concerning the calculation of a remedy: The method proposed by ADE (and endorsed by LRSD and NLRSDf and the 'Iriethod proposed by,.PCSSD.:,: Asr'discussed beio'w; PCS5D's proposai is flawed and - should'itbt be adoptea'by this C~urt.because (a) it assumes that Equalization Funds are 1  distributed on a pure per-ADM basis, and therefore is inconsistent with the findings of -this Court and the Eighth Circuit that such funds are distributed on an \"equalized\" basis; (b) it includes in the calculation PCSSD's health insurance matching obligations attributable to federally-funded school district employees, costs which were not paid by the State under the Act 34 funding system; and (c) it would produce an unwarranted windfall to PCSSD and the other Districts and would give the Districts compensation beyond that which is necessary to hold the Districts harmless from the effects of the funding changes. A. PCSSD'S J:\u003eROPOSAL IGNORES THE FACT THAT EQUALIZATION FUNDING IS NOT DISTRIBUTED ON A PURE PER-ADM BASIS The first flaw in PCSSD' s proposed remedy calculation is that it is based upon - the assumption that funds distributed for school district retirement and health insurance obligations ( distributed as \"Equalization Funding\") are distributed on a pure per-ADM basis. In the worksheet attached to its brief PCSSD calculates the amount of retirement and health insurance funding it received in 1996-97 and 1997-98 by taking the total statewide teacher retirement and health insurance obligations for all school districts for each year and dividing it by the total ADM count for all districts to arrive at an \"amt. distributed per ADM.\" PCSSD then multiplies that number by its previous year's ADM to arrive at the figure that is supposed to represent the amount of State retirement or health insurance funding it received. 2  C. PCSSD'S PROPOSED REMEDY WOULD PRODUCE DIVERGENT  RECOVERiES BETWEEN THE THREE DISTRICTS AND WILL RESULT IN UNW ARRAN'fED WINDFALL RECOVERIES The third and most significant flaw in PCSSD' s proposed remedy is that it would give the Districts more funds than the previous retirement and health insurance \"program\" would have given them had it not been changed in the 1995 legislative session, and therefore PCs.SD' s proposal violates the Eighth Circuit's command that no remedy be fashioned that produces a \"windfall\" recovery to the Districts. Moreover, PCSSD' s proposed calculation would produce an anomalous result under which each Pulaski County school district would be entitled to State funds sufficient to satisfy a different \"percentage\" of each District's actual retirement and health insurance obligations. 1. PC~SD's Proposal That The Districts Receive More Than 100% Of Their. Retirement And Insurance Obligations Violates The Eighth Circuit's Directive That The Districts Not Receive A Windfall In its instructions to this Cqurt on remand the Eighth Circuit directed that a remedy be fashioned that places the Districts \"in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed.\" At the same time, however, the Eighth Circuit recognized that the remedy should not produce a \"windfall\" recovery that would place the Districts in a better position than that which they enjoyed under the prior method of retirement and health insurance funding. PCSSD' s proposed remedy must be rejected because it would result in an unwarranted windfall to the Districts. 4  Prior to 1996-97 the funding \"program\" ensured that approximately 100% of the Districts' required retirement and health insurance contributions be paid by the State. Yet under PCSSD's proposed remedy, PCS.SD would be entitled to receive state funds equal to 101.2% of its 1996-97 retirement obligation, 101.02% of its 1997-98 retirement obligation, and 103.79% of its 1997-98 health insurance obligation. Moreover, PCSSD would be entitled to keep all of the state funds it received to satisfy its health insurance obligation for 1996-97, even though PCS.SD' s own analysis indicates that PCSSD received state funds sufficient to satisfy 107.62% of its actual health insurance obligation for that year.3 PCSSD's proposed analysis - and any similar analysis that would give any District more than 100% of its retirement and insurance obligation - would run afoul of the Eighth Circuit's direction that a \"hold harmless\" remedy be fashioned that results in no \"windfall\" recovery to the Districts. 2. PCSSD's Proposal Would Result In Divergent Levels Of Funding Between The Three Districts Moreover, PCSSD's proposed remedy calculation makes little sense and should be rejected because, under PCS.SD' s method, each District will receive State funds sufficient to satisfy a different \"percentage\" of its health insurance and retirement obligations. Under PC5.5D's proposal, its appropriate \"percentage level\" of funding should be determined by calculating the total retirement and health insurance obligation of all other school districts (including LRSD and NLRSD), calculating the 3 The inequity of this result is further illustrated by the fact that, under PCSSD's own analysis, the other 310 school districts in the state received from the State, on average, funds sufficient to satisfy 99.67% of their health insurance obligation. 5 - total amount of State funds distributed for those purposes to all other school districts (including LRSD and NLRSD), and calculating what \"percentage\" of this total obligation of these districts is covered by state funds. Under PCSSD' s proposal, PCSSD would then be entitled to funds sufficient to pay for this same \"percentage\" of its obligations. If this same methodology is adopted for each Pulaski County District,4 it would undoubtedly result in each District being entitled to funding sufficient to constitute a different \"percentage\" of their respective obligations. Because Equalization Funds are distributed in a manner that takes into account the wealth of the district, and given the differences in the relative \"wealth\" of each Pulaski County district, using PCSSD's method might result in PCSSD receiving, say, 103% of its health insurance obligation, while NLRSD and LRSD would be entitled to some different percentage of their respective obligations. There is no reason in law or logic to adopt such a remedy. For the foregoing reasons, ADE submits that PCSSD's proposed remedy, and any remedy that would result in any District receiving more than 100% of its retirement and health insurance obligations, must be rejected. 4 Under PCSSD's proposal, presumably LRSD would calculate its own \"percentage\" entitlement by looking at the state funding and ob'iigations of all other districts (inciuding PCSSD and NLRSD), and NLRSD would calculate its own \"percentage\" entitlement by looking at the state funding and obligations of all other districts (including LRSD andPCSSD). 6 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _ I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 19, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82 - 866RECEllfED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE DISTRICTS' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO ADE'S SUBMISSION CONCERNING REMEDIES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS : INTERVENERS ,'  INTERVENERS ON THE ISSUES OF TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE I. Introduction. The three Pulaski County school districts (the \"districts\") agree that ADE' s submission provides one acceptable method for calculating the amount of Act 917 equalization funding received by the districts' for teacher retirement and health insurance. 1 However, ADE stopped short of granting the districts complete relief. The Eighth Circuit's order requires \"equal state funding ... for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1018 ( 8t h cir. 1996) . See LRSD v. PCS SD, slip op. at 27, 1998 WL 352245, *6 (8 th Cir. July 1, 1998). Under Act 917, districts outside Pulaski County received 107% of their teacher retirement and health 1The districts cannot agree at this time that ADE's methodology should be used for future claims to be made by the districts with regard to special education and loss funding. insurance costs. 2 Therefore, the three Pulaski County districts should also receive 107% of their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. See Exhibit 1 attached. II. Discussion. In remanding the issue of damages to this Court, the Eighth Circuit offered the following guidance: The three Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts a~e entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFPA plus teacher retirement plus heal th insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. LRSD v. PCSSD, slip op. at 27; 1998 WL 352245 at *6 (emphasis supplied). 2Using Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green, this percentage may be calculated by first subtracting the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the three Pulaski County districts from the statewide total to obtain the actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs of other districts in the state. The amount other districts received in excess of their actual costs is equal to the total desegregation adjustment shown in column 4. The total desegregation adjustment is then added to the actual teacher retirement costs of other district. This equals the actual amount received by other districts in the state for their teacher retirement and health insurance costs. The percentage of costs received by other districts in the state is determined by dividing the actual amount received by other districts in the state by the actual costs of other districts in the state. In both 1996-97 and 1997-98, this percentage is 107%. 2 To determine the districts ' damages as prescribed by the - Eighth Circuit, this Court must know two numbers: (1) the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system; and, (2) the amount the districts actually received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system. Using these two numbers, the districts' damages can easily be calculated by subtracting what the district's actually received under Act 917 from what the districts would have received under Act 34. See Exhibit 1 attached. The amount the districts received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the new Act 917 funding system is no longer in dispute. The districts accept for the purpose of calculating their damages in these cases the amounts set forth in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green. The parties dispute, however, the amount the districts would have received for teacher retirement and health insurance under the old Act 34 funding system. ADE contends that this amount is equal to 100% of the districts' actual costs. The districts contend that this amount is equal to the percentage of actual costs received by districts statewide (which is 107%). Resolution of this dispute should be guided by the Eighth Circuit's opinion in the workers' compensation case. In that case, the Eighth Circuit defined the workers' compensation \"program\" as \"equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. Thus, the 3 Eighth Circuit found that this Court \"correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" l,g ( emphasis supplied) . 3 Likewise, the State must disburse teacher retirement and health insurance funding to the districts \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" The nature of the State's violation of the Settlement Agreement dictates a remedy which ensures no disparate impact on the three Pulaski County districts. As the Eighth Circuit explained in the workers' compensation case, disparate funding violates the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreement. The court stated: The program in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement, as we see it, was equal state funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. Thus, the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" We see this portion of the Settlement Agreement as an anti-retaliation clause. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation commitments. If, for example, the State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation 3Specifically, this Court stated: (T]he Court does find that the state must assist the three Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting the other districts in the state. Thus, the state must fund the same proportion of the cost of each of the three Pulaski County school district' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. Memorandum Opinion and Order filed Jan. 13, 1995, Docket No. 2337. 4 payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would clearly have been offended. The state did not do that, however. Rather, it changed the funding formula for all districts in the State. So long as that change effects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement. That, however, does not end our inquiry. When the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs, it paid about one-half of the expense statewide. In the Pulaski County districts, it paid only about one-third of the expense. This disparity arose because the State's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. The Pulaski County districts are employee heavy compared to other districts, increasing their workers' compensation costs. This result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018 (emphasis supplied). By defining the \"program\" as \"equal state funding,\" the Eighth Circuit's opinion prohibits the State from funding the districts \"to a lesser degree\" than other districts in the state. Using the Eighth Circuit's analogy, the Settlement Agreement would clearly be offended if the State passed a statute funding 100% of the three Pulaski County districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs and 107% of these costs for other districts in the state. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d at 1018. This is exactly what the State did in passing Act 917. As the Eighth Circuit stated in the workers' compensation case, \"It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Ig. 5 Act 917 violates the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreement because \"[i]t funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state.\" Id. Therefore, as in the workers' compensation case, the proper remedy is to direct the State to provide the districts funding for their teacher retirement and heal th insurance costs \"in the same percentage as it does statewide.\" Id. ADE may argue that funding 107% of the districts' costs will provide the districts the windfall described by the Eighth Circuit. This argument fails for two reasons. First, the windfall described by Eighth Circuit arises only if the State is not given credit for the amount of teacher retirement and heal th insurance funding provided under Act 917. See LRSD v. PCSSD, slip op. at 27; 1998 WL 352245 at *6. The districts agree with ADE's proposed methodology for calculating the this credit, and both ADE's and the district's damage calculations deduct this amount to avoid a windfall. Second, funding the three Pulaski County districts at 100% would deprive them of additional funding being provided to other districts in the state. Because education funds are finite, funds used to pay teacher retirement arid health insurance costs decrease the amount of funds which can be spent on direct educational programs. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F. 3d at 1018 ( \"Assuming finite funds, workers' compensation payments will decrease funds available for more direct educational programs.\") . Thus, if the average Arkansas school district's teacher retirement and health insurance costs total $1,000,000.00, Act 917 provides the district 6 $1,070,000.00 -- an excess of $70,000.00 over its costs. This excess can be used to fund direct educational programs in addition to other funding received by the district under Act 917. There is no reason why the three Pulaski County districts should be deprived of these additional funds provided to other districts in the state. To the contrary, the districts' desegregation obligations place the districts in a position of greater need than most other districts. III. Conclusion. Act 917 funds 107% of the teacher retirement and health insurance costs of districts in the state outside Pulaski County. In order to fund the three Pulaski County districts in the same percentage, the State must pay the Little Rock School District an additional $8,740,083 for 1996-97 and $9,079,676 for 1997-98; the North Little Rock School District an additional $1,303,417 for 1996-97 and $1,328,590 for 1997-98; and, the Pulaski County Special School District an additional $1,920,359 for 1996-97 and $2,222,213 for 1997-98. See Exhibit 1 attached. 4 Accordingly, the districts pray that the State be ordered to pay these amounts to the districts. 4Exhibit 1 incorporates the total teacher retirement and health insurance costs of the districts as calculated by ADE with the exception of PCSSD. See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tristan D. Green. ADE's calculations exclude federal employees only for PCSSD. In order to be consistent and fair to PCSSD, Exhibit 1 is based on a total cost for teacher retirement and health insurance calculated by Dr. Don Stewart which includes federal employees. 7 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 8 ------ ristopher He John C. Fendley, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 19th day of August, 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 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 ~ John c. Fendley, Jr. 9 Exhibit 1 Summary of Proposed Remedy on Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Issues - Fiscal Years 1997 \u0026 1998 1996-97 1 2 3 4 Total 107% State Districts Actual of Actual Funding Damages District Cost Cost Received !l.:...fil LRSD $13,832,481 $14,800,755 $6,060,672 $8,740,083 NLRSD $4,458,912 $4,771,036 $3,467,619 $1,303,417 PCSSD $9,564,451 $10,233,963 $8,313,604 $1,920,359 TOTAL $11,963,858 1997-98 1 2 3 4 Total 107% State Districts Total Actual of Actual Funding Damages 1996-97 \u0026 District Cost Cost Received !l.:...fil 1997-98 LRSD $14,337,742 $15,341,383.94 $6,261,708 $9,079,676 $17,819,759 - NLRSD $4,606,297 $4,928,738 $3,600,148 $1,328,590 $2,632,007 PCSSD $9,753,866 $10,436,637 $8,214,424 $2,222,213 $4,142,571 TOTAL $12,630,478 $24,594,336 NOTE: Dr. Don Stewart's calculations were used for PCSSD's actual costs. t . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL.  KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE1,,eo AUG 2 o 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION BY THE PCSSD PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On this day, the LRSD is submitting a proposal which accepts the State's methodology but urges that the districts receive 107% of their costs as compared to the State's proposed 100%. The LRSD submission also supplies the correct cost numbers for the PCSSD making them consistent with how costs were calculated by the State for LRSD and NLRSD. If the Court ultimately determines not to accept the proposal being made by the LRSD today, then the PCSSD reserves the right to argue the adoption of the methodology and outcomes reflected on the attached Exhibits \"A\" and \"B\". Further, the PCSSD does not currently agree that the methodology proposed by the State should be applicable to any other remaining issues or claims that may be advanced in this matter. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Special School Di CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August / 7 , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 STATE TEACHE'.R RETIREMENT CALCULATION 1996-97  DISTRIB. @ ACTUAL COST pcssd only TOT. OTHER STATE TOT. STATE 1995-1996 SOURCE INFORMATION $136,389,292 96-97 ACTUAL STATEWIDE TEA. RET. COST $136,389,292 96-97 STATEWIDE TEA. RET. DISTRIBUTION 447,838.95 TOTAL ADM $304.55 AMT. DISTRIBUTED PER ADM 1996-1997 ACT. COST 1996-1997 STATE HEALTH INSURANCE CALCULATION 1996-97 SOURCE INFORMATION $46,206,825 96-97 ACTUAL STATEWIDE HEALTH INS. COST TR\u0026HIEXP.WK4 1996-1997 DISTRIB. @ ACTUAL COST $46,206,825 96-97 STATEWIDE HEALTH INS. DISTRIBUTION - INCLUDING FEDERAL 447,838.95 TOTAL ADM $103.18 AMT. DISTRIBUTED PER ADM 1995-1996 1996-1997 ACT. COST 1996-1997 1996-1997 TOT. OTHER STATE 396,797.72 $39 020,310 $98.34 $40 940 527 TOT. STATE 447 838.95 $46 206 825 $103.18 $48 480 696 NOTE: HEAL TH INSURANCE ACTUAL COST INCLUDES COSTS FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR ALL DISTRICTS. 08/18/98 1996-1997 1996-1997 1996-1997 TOT. EXHIBIT I 8 ,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ., WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 4 1998 Of-FIGE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO~ 1, ct al. ADE'S INTERROGATORIES TO LRSD DEP\"r.NDANTS RE: TEACHER RETIREMENT/HEAL TH INSURANCE REMEDIES The Arkansas Department of Education requests that plaintiff Little Rock School District respond to the following interrogatories within the time and in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. INTERROGATORY No. 1: State whether LRSD reported ODM employees as LRSD employees to the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System for the purpose of ATRS' calculation of LRSD's 1996-97 teacher retirement matching obligation. INTERROGATORY No. 2:  If the answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is in the affirmative, state: (a) The name of each ODM employee so reported; and (b) for each such ODM employee, . the amount (in dollars) said employee generated towards LRSD' s total 1996-97 teacher retirement matching obligation. ' . '   '  ' : : ---- - ---  INTERROGATORY No. 8: For the period beginning July 1, 1996 to the present state, for each month, the total number of federally-funded LRSD employees participating in the public school employee health insurance program. For purposes of this interrogatory, the phrase \"federally funded LRSD employee\" means an employee for whom LRSD was required to pay the health insurance contribution rate under Ark. Code Ann.  6-17-1117 and whose salary was paid in whole or in part with federal funds. INTERROGATORY No. 9: State the name, title, employer, business address and telephone number of each and every person who prepared, provided information, or otherwise assisted in the preparation of the response to Interrogatory No. 9. (You need not identify anyone who simply typed or reproduced the responses.) Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant ~ ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 21, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones  Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 I  IN TH~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AUG 2 4 199B OfflCE0f ~TlON MONITORING PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. ADE'S INTERROGATORIES TO NLRSD . - . . . . . DEFENDANTS RE: TEACHER RETIREMENT/HEALTH INSURANCE REMEDIES The Arkansas Department of Education requests that the North Little Rock School District respond to the following interrogatories within the time and in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. INTERROGATORY No. 1: For the period beginning July 1, 1996 to the present state, for each month, the total number of federally-funded NLRSD employees participating in the public school employee health insurance program. For purposes of this interrogatory, the phrase \"federally funded NLRSD employee\" means an employee for whom NLRSD was required to pay the health insura "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1684","title":"Court filings concerning attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants and remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1998-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","North Little Rock School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants and remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1684"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, ruling; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; Court of Appeals, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, joint submission of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, joint motion to extend time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for further extension of time to file reply briefs concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  , -y 06 / :I0 / 98 14 : 42 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS Member of the Pulaski County Board * of Education, a Public Corporate; and * Thomas Broughton, Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member * of the Pulaski County Board of * Education, a Public Corporate; * * Defendants, * * Arkansas Department of Education, * * Respondent, * * Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. * * Submitted: February 24, 1998 Filed: July 1, 1998 Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, 1 Chief Judge, HEANEY and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. 1TI1e Hon. Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He has been succeeded by the Hon. Pasco M. Bowman II. -20- . 023 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 43 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ~024 In these appeals we are asked once again to interpret certain provisions of the agreement by which the parties to the Pulaski County, Arkansas, school-desegregation case settled their dispute. The question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated that agreement. The Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District (which we shall collectively call \"the districts\") claim that by making the changes in question the State violated undertakings it made in the settlement agreement. The District Court, Susan Webber Wright, J., held for the districts on summary judgment. We affirm. I. This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance. When the parties agreed to settle this case, in 1989, the extant system of school funding by the State of Arkansas provided for direct payment by the State of both of these categories of costs. The General Assembly appropriated funds eannarked for these purposes. These funds were separate from another, larger, appropriation for general State aid to public school districts, generally known as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). We shall call this system of funding, under which the State separately paid for teacher retirement and health insurance, the Act 34 system, after Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.), codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Repl. 1993) (repealed in large part 1995). In 1995, the General Assembly enacted a new system of school funding. Separate appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance were no longer made. Each local school district, including the districts involved in this case, was required to pay its own contributions for teacher retirement, Act 1194 of 1995,  13, codified as Ark. Code Ann.  24-7-103 (Michie Repl. 1996), and health insurance, Act 1194 of 1995,  14, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1117 (Michie Supp. 1997). -21- I _, 06 / :10 / 98 1 4 : 4:1 '5'3 14 539 3945 Districts began to receive their State aid in one large pot, so to speak, combining what had been called :MFP A with funds that under the previous system had been earmarked for teacher retirement and health insurance. (There were refinements and exceptions to this system, but our general description is sufficient for present purposes.) Under Act 917 of 1995, codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Supp. 1997) -- the Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995, this new general fund was apportioned among the several districts in accordance with two main criteria: the number of pupils, called Average Daily Membership (ADM), and the wealth of the districts, with poorer districts getting relatively more money, in order to reduce the disparity in per-pupil expenditures between the poorer and the wealthier districts across the State. This change was made in response to a decision of the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, which had held the disparity in funding violative of the State Constitution. Lake View Sch. Dist. v. Tucker, No. 92-5318 (Pulaski Co., Ark., Ch. Ct., Nov. 9, 1994). The difficulty with this change, from the point of view of the three Pulaski County districts, was that it affected, to their disadvantage, the basis on which funds from the State would be available to them for teacher-retirement and health-insurance purposes. These districts, as we shall explain further later in this opinion, are \"employee heavy.\" They have proportionally more employees, including teachers, than they have pupils, when compared with school districts generally throughout the State. This is so at least partly because of special desegregation obligations imposed on the districts by the settlement agreement. Funds distributed according to a formula heavily influenced by ADM, therefore, are not so great as they would be if the earlier system, which simply funded retirement and health insurance for all employees, generally speaking, had been continued. During fiscal year 1995-96, the sum total of State aid received by the districts was more, in absolute dollar terms, than it had been in 1994-9 5 under the Act 34 system, but it was less than it would have been had the Act 34 system, including earmarked fimding for retiremerit and health insurance, been retained. -22- 06 / 30 / 98 14:44 '6'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS . 026 It is now time to describe the provisions of the settlement agreement that, according to the districts, were violated by these changes. Two sections of the agreement are principally at issue,2 Sections ILE and ILL. The relevant part of Section ILE reads as follows: In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: * * * .. (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funrung. Section ILL reads as follows : 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 2NLRSD argues that the State's actions also violate Section ILF, NLRSD Br. at 1 7-18. This section reads as follows, in pertinent part: 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. This provision may actually fit the present case better than Sections II.E and II.L, which are the focus of the District Court's opinion and most of the parties' arguments. We are affinning largely on the basis of the District Court's reasoning, however, so we need not pursue the applicability of Section II.F. -23- l ., ... 06 / 30 / 98 14:45 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS 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 fonnula 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. . -~027 The District Court held, in brief, that teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding, as they existed under the former system of public school financing, were ''programs\" within the meaning of Section II.E. The funding formula for such programs, the Court said, citing our opinion in Little Rock Sch Dist. v Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), could be adjusted in a way that is generally applicable to all districts, but only if the adjustment is \"fair and rational,\" in the words of Section ILL. The changes at issue are not \"fair and rational\" in the present context because they work to the disadvantage of the three districts. The new funding scheme does not take into account the number of employees, but only ADM and the districts' wealth. The three districts are \"employee heavy,\" as we said in Little Rock Sch. Dist , supra, 83 F.3d at 1018. The changes in funding for teacher retirement and health insurance therefore violate the settlement agreement, the Court held. II. The State, acting through the Arkansas Department of Education, appeals. The Alma School District and 110 other districts from all parts of the State, also appeal, having been allowed by the District Court to .intervene for this purpose. The intervenors are apprehensive that if the three Pulaski County districts win, securing additional fimding for themselves, the State money going to the intervenor districts will be reduced. (This is not necessarily true, but we understand why the intervenors feel they have an interest to protect.) -24- 06 / 30 / 98 t4 : 46 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ll]028 .... , , AppeUants' first argument is that it was error to grant summary judgment because - there were genuine issues of material fact that needed to be tried. The first such fact, the State says, is whether funds specifically eannarked for teacher retirement and health insurance are now being distributed as part of the new system of Equalization Funding. We cannot see why this \"fact\" - if it really is a fact, instead of just a description of a legislative change in how the State distributes aid to local school districts - is important or material. The essential nature of the change is undeniable. The State used to pay separately for teacher retirement and health insurance, and it did so on a basis that necessarily took into account the number of each district's employees. Money still goes to the districts that may be used for these pUiposes, but the amount has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system, and it no longer has anything to do with numbers of employees. As the District Court phrased it, \"items like teacher retirement and health insurance, which were previously paid directly by the State, were put into one large pool.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, No. LR-C- 82-866, slip op. 9 (E.D. Ark., memorandlllil opinion and order filed Feb. 18, 1997). Whether this change is characterized as a complete abandonment of State aid for teacher retirement and health insurance, or simply as a change in the way the State - chooses to fund these programs ( a description which seems more realistic to us) is not important to the result in this case. The second fact the State claims was in genuine dispute was whether the new funding system distiibutes funds on a \"pure\" per-student, or ADM, basis. The State says the districts took that position in the District Court, whereas in fact the new . funding system is based not only on ADM but also the wealth of each individual district. In our view, it does not matter what position the districts took below. The important question is on what basis the District Court acted, and that Court clearly did not think or say that the new system was based only on ADM. \"[T]he new funding scheme,\" the Court said! \"is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist., No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 5 (E.D. Ark., memorandmn opinion and order filed Apr. 22, 1997) ( emphasis supplied). -25- 06 / :IU / 98 14 : 47 'tl'314 5;19 3945 !JS COIJRT APPEALS The key point is not whether the new system is based only on ADM, but that it gives no weight at all to numbers of employees. So we agree with the District Court that there were no genuine issues of material fact. That being so, was it right to enter judgment for the districts as a matter of law? We think the answer is yes. To begin with, there is no doubt that the teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding systems in effect at the time the settlement agreement was signed, in 1989, are \"programs\" within the meaning of Section Il.E. In Little Rocle Sch, llisL, ~' 83 F.3d at 1017-18, we held that the State's payment of workers' compensation costs was such a \"program,\" and we see no way to distinguish the present case, Our opinion in that case points the way towards the proper solution Ofthe present appeal. There, we had before us two distinct actions of the State: first, a decision to discontinue entirely State payments for workers' compensation for employees of school districts, and, second, the State's decision to distribute, as an interim measure, certain sums as \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs. We held that the first decision did not violate the settlement agreement, but that the second one did. Explaining this result, we said: [W]e do not believe that the State's action regarding the \"program\" necessarily violates the Settlement Agreement. The program in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement, as we see it, was equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. Thus, the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" We see this portion of the Settlement Agreement as an anti-retaliation clause. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation c01mnitments. If, for example, the -26- State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would clearly have been offended. The State did not do that, however. Rather, it changed the funding fonnula for all districts in the State. So long as that change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement. That, however, does not end our inquiry. When the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs, it paid about one-half oftheexpense statewide:- m. the -- ---- Pulaski County districts, it paid only about one-third of the expense. This disparity arose because the State's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. The Pulaski County districts are employee heavy compared to other districts, increasing their workers' compensation costs. Tiris result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached tlris result in a mathematically consistent manner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County distiicts in the same percentage as it does statewide. 83 F.3d at 1018. - H 1 : _ ;, Thus, we read Sections II.E and II.L together, in an attempt to make sense out of them as a unified whole. The State's discontinuance of payment for workers' compensation, because it was made on an even-handed basis and applicable generally to all school districts, was, in om judgment, not a violation of paragraph ll.E. Reading E and L together, we took the view that the State could discontinue a funding program -27- 06 / 30 / 98 1 4 : 48 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS if it did so in a generally applicable manner and on a fair and rational basis .3 The State's reason for changing its full, no-questions-asked funding of workers' compensation was to give the individual school districts a financial incentive to reduce workers' compensation premiums, by paying more attention to safety in the workplace, for example. nus purpose, combined with the fact that the change affected all school districts equally, convinced us that the change did not violate Section II.E. In effect, we read the last part of Section ILL, referring to \"[flair and rational adjustments to [a] ... funding fonnula which have general applicability . . . , \" as modifying not only the specific prohibitions of Section II.L, but also the provisions of Section II.E(6). . 031 With this previous opinion in mind, we agree with the District Court that theactions taken by the State in the present case closely resemble the \"seed money\" issue in the previous case. \"Seed money\" disbursed by the State covered about one-half of workers' compensation costs statewide, while paying only about one-third of this expense for the three Pulaski County districts. The new funding system for teacherretirement and health-insurance costs produces the same sort of disparity, though the exact amount of the disparity is open to debate. Because the three Pulaski County districts are \"employee heavy,\" as noted above, when compared to school districts in Arkansas generally, the State funds they are now receiving cover proportionally less of their teacher-retirement and health-insurance costs. The District Court explained the 3On the present appeal, NLRSD argues that we were wrong in so interpreting Section II .E. NLRSD brief at 22-23 . In NLRSD's view, Section ILE is a free-standing, independent requirement. The State must continue to pay its share of any and all programs in existence at the time of the settlement agreement, whatever its reasons for desiring to change them, and whatever the effect of such changes. Certainly this is one way to read the agreement, and a plausible way, at that. We did not so interpret Sections ILE and Il.L in our previous decision, however, and that decision has become the law of this case. We do not choose to reexamine it. We have power to do so, but the arguments now advanced against our prior interpretation do not seem to us sufficiently compelling to enable us to describe our prior opinion as egregiously wrong or unjust, and some such description would be necessary to avoid the law-of-the-case doctrine. -28- 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 49 '6'3 14 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS 032 matter in tenns we find persuasive. We quote from the Court's order on teacher - retirement, but the language applies equally to health insurance: The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money\" fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County school districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding fonnula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. There is a difference between the State's decision not to fund workers' compensation and to end direct state funding of teacher retirement. The rationale concerning workers' compensation was that the shift of responsibility to the school districts would prompt them to take measures to reduce their workers' compensation costs. Although the State argues the same rationale applies concerning teacher retirement, there are factors, including desegregation obligations, beyond the control of school districts which dictate the number of employees and salaries of teachers. For example, the LRSD desegregation plan obligates the district to implement a four-year-old program, to staff incentive schools with instructional aides, theme specialists, computer aides, art teachers; physical education teachers, social workers, counselors, auxiliary teachers, media specialists, and supervision aides, among many others. The -29- 06 / 30/ 98 14 : 50 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS magnet and interdistrict schools require additional staff such as theme and curriculum specialists. In the PCSSD, numerous positions are required to fulfill desegregation plan obligations, such as home school counselors, curriculum coordinators, theme specialists, and staffing for its desegregation division, such as an assistant superintendent and director of desegregation. Likewise, the NLRSD incurs expenditures as a direct result of the requirements of the desegregation plan, such as an assistant superintendent for desegregation, reading tutors and support personnel, HIPPY staffing and support, computer technicians, junior and senior high remedial reading, and homebound teachers. Thus, it is clear that the districts are not in a position to control their teacher retirement costs in the sense that the districts might control workers' compensation costs. ~033 Little Rock Sch. Dist. SJJPia, slip op. at 9-11 (memorandum opinion and order filed February 18, 1997) (footnote omitted). For these reasons, we agree with the District Court that the changes in state funding at issue in this case did violate the settlement agreement. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Court's interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a fonnal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. The orders granting summary judgment on the teacher-retirement and health-insurance issues will be affinned. On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The tluee Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding -30- for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. Tilis means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system -- MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance -- would have produced, and what the new system -- Equalization Funding in one Jump sum -- is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation . . Admittedly it cannot be .. exact, but we believe that the District, .. . . . .. Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. The orders appealed from are affirmed, and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHIB CIRCUIT. -31- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * F1LE6 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL O 9 1998 JAMES r M~c ORMACK, CLERK By: \\ .. _ u /\\ M o [\\ .- OEP CLERK\u003c- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * 1 3 1998 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * ,JI II Intervenors, * OfFICErn: * DESEGREGATION MOKITORlNG KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for the approval of the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1).1 The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter from the Magnet Review Committee dated June 20, 1998. The proposed budget includes the second year of funding for the five-year proposed program improvement plan for the six original magnet schools. The total amount budgeted, $18, 159, 205, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $4,654 per student, calculated from an actual third-quarter enrollment of 3,901.89 students. The budget shows an increase of $84.00 per student over the 1996-97 budget, with the second year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. 2 1 Attached hereto as Exhibit L 2 The Magnet Review Committee acknowledged in its letter to this Court that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had before it an appeal regardi~g teacher retirement and health insurance which may The Court hereby approves the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cfA-day of July 1998. =Mk UDS'f ATES DISTRI TDGE fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CC,MPLIANCE WM RULE 58 AND/OR 79(~ FRCP ON 1ll0~ BY r_;r:_ ___ impact the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). The Eighth Circuit has now decided the case regarding teacher retirement and health insurance, and this Court anticipates making additional rulings regarding those issues in the future based upon the Eighth Circuit's decision. The Court expects; as the Magnet Review Committee has stated, that any revisions to the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1) required to be made in light of these decisions will be submitted to this Court for approval. 2 ~f15~:~~g;;;faJe'i~~~~~1il~il::~:::t;:::fr::,: 96-97  F.T.E.- .. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 03 Specialists 39.2 04 Counselors 12.4 05 Media Spec. 6.5 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 1.0 07 Music 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 09 Vocational 12.6 10 Special Education 8.2 11 Gifted 5.4 12 Classroom 177.9 13 Substitutes 0.0 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 293.2 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.0 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 17 Custodians 29.0 18 Information Services 0.0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 20 Other-Aides 37.0 21 Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 TOTAL ( 10-20) PURCHASED 22 Utilities SERVICES 23 Travel (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL /40) CAPITAL 30 Eouipment OUTLAY 31 Buildino Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) 390.6 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ,_,.:.'::..:\\,%:\u003c'.: GRAN0';TOTAL'.f ,':\u003c\":'\"'''' . XXX\u003eOtX  96-97 96-97 Budget Actual $369,070 $369,069 $463,584 $463,585 $1 ,327,018 $1 ,362,980 $476,963 S476,836 S248,736 $248,693 $23.723 $23,723 $0 so $0 so $347,888 $378,577 $264,005 $265,751 $197,633 $197 .633 $5,877 ,608 $5,843,911 $154,990 $166,607 $486.252 $486,572 $10,237,470 $10,283,936 $373,625 $373,570 $163,071 $163,569 $369,006 $365,788 $0 so $156,854 $130,143 $312,743 $317 ,095 $3,115,089 $3,080,923 $4 ,490,388 $4,431,089 $14,727,858 $14,715,D24 $591 ,944 $574,528 $33,600 $13,472 $8,750 so $82,878 $123,953 $717,172 $711,953 $3.600 so $425,485 $450,479 $41 ,523 $35,436 $28,771 $20,114 $499,379 $506,030 $376,785 $316,694 $5,500 $0 $350 $106 $382,635 $316,800 $27,402 $30,648 $0 $0 $27,402 $30,648 $1 ,626,587 $1 ,565,431 $16,354,446 $16,280,455 $890,896 $929,702  $17,245,342 $17,210,157 97-98 F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 39.2 12 4 6 5 1 0 00 00 12 6 8.7 5.4 177.9 0.0 13 0 292 7 20 0 5.4 29 0 1.0 60 37.0 XXXlOOOO( 98.4 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx.x XXXlOOOO( xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 391 .1 xxxxxxxx \u003eOtXXXX Exhibit 1 97-98 Prooosed $376.587 $488,462 $1 ,343 .119 $505.887 S253.085 S26 ,065 so so S343.81 7 S289, 709 $199.275 $6.147,115 $165.000 S425, 964 $10,564 .086 S407. 495 S163,262 S356,470 S22 .415 $133.806 $285,101 $3,090,046 $4 .458,595 $15,022,681 S617 ,80.3 S27 .000 so S 156.919 $801.722 S2 .500 S5 74 ,289 $35 .450 $17 .632 $629,871 $281 .692 so so $281 ,692 $11 ,213 $0 $11 .213 $1,724 ,498 $16,747 ,179 $1 ,412,026 $18,159,205 I I I I I I I I I Line lteni Costs  Budget Actual Proposed ...... . .. .. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 ;  Stipends $69.094 $19,983 S33,837 Other Objects $0 $0 so Indirect Costs $736,303 $824,092 $1 ,284 .189 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $32,000 $31 ,964 S40.500 Gifted Programs $500 $502 S500 Plant Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 S500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1,500 $1 ,660 $1 .500 Special Education $4,000 $4 ,000 $4 ,000 $0 $0 so xx:xxxx $0 $0 $0 xx:xxxx $0 $0 so Total Line Items $890,896 $929,702 S 1,412,026  ,/:_' 1996-97 . _: . 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,765.61 3.765 61 3,901 89 Total Costs $17,245,342 $17,210,157 $18,159,205 $4;580 $4,570 $4,654 1~7,:-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Booker Ma,i:i'net School ... F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $59,663 $59,663 1 0 561 ,582 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $40.672 $40,672 1 0 S4 3. 757 03 Specialists 7.0 $261 ,827 $262.257 7 0 S268.408 04 Counselors 2.0 $73,553 $73,468 2.0 S76, 155 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $41 ,963 $41 ,963 1 0 S42 ,653 06 Art-Per1./Prod. 1.0 $23. 723 $23,723 1 0 S26,065 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $50,243 $50,243 1 3 $55,624 11 Gifted 1.0 $38,946 $38,946 1.0 $39,594 12 Classroom 30.2 $998,938 $1,001,579 30 2 S1 042,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 $47. 118 00 $30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $126,243 $126.243 4.0 S 105. 300 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49.5 $1 ,7 35,772 $1,765.876 49 5 $1,791 ,516 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $34,706 $35,046 20 $39,821 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31 ,825 $32,145 1 0 $33.050 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,019 $54 ,958 4 0 $53 ,033 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 0.2 $3,736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $59,679 $60,277 7.0 $56,973 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $520,352 $520,341 S519,779 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.0 $701 ,580 $702:767 14.2 S706 ,392 TOTAL (10-20)   ;,_., .. $2,437,352 $2,468,642 $2,497,909 PURCHASED 22 Utilities , , .   $78,070 $66,703 $81 ,480 SERVICES 23 Travel   ... ,   $5,000 $2,355 $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,493 $12,711 S13,350 TOTAL (30) $91 ,563 $81, 769 S96,830 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $42,079 $40,397 S105.498 (40) 28 Media $6,150 $6,105 SS.250 29 Other $4 ,205 $3,475 $3 ,372 TOTAL (40) $52.434 $49,977 $114 ,120 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $60,059 $50,840 $65. 760 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. - $2,500 so - so (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $62,559 $50,840 S65. 760 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $259 $259 S250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $259 $259 S250 TOTAL (30-60) $206,816 $182.845 xxxxxxxx S276. 960 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,644,167 $2,651,488 63. 7 S2.774 .869 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $145,777 $138,793 x:x:xxxxx,. S217,370 i\\:,u:;.,:;-:.GRAND .. TOTAlr :-.: XXXXXX' .. ... ,,, $2,789,944 $2,790,280 xxxxxx $2 ,992,238 Line Item Costs  Budget Actual Proposed Booker ' 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends S20, 733 S3. 789 S8.357 Other Objects Indirect Costs S121 ,381 S131 .479 $205,499 Vocational $0 $0 so Athletics $0 so so Gifted Programs $155 $149 $15 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1309","title":"\"Pulaski County School District,\" Volume III","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1998-07-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["\"Pulaski County School District,\" Volume III"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1309"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1374","title":"Proceedings: ''Pulaski County School District,'' Volume II","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Pulaski County School District,'' Volume II"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1374"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["239 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1335","title":"Proceedings: ''Pulaski County School District,'' Volume II, condensed version","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School integration","School management and organization","Education--Evaluation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Pulaski County School District,'' Volume II, condensed version"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1335"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["12 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1365","title":"Proceedings: ''Pulaski County School District,'' Volume I","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-06-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Pulaski County School District,'' Volume I"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1365"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["210 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1342","title":"Proceedings: ''Pulaski County School District, Volume I,'' condenced version","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-06-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Pulaski County School District, Volume I,'' condenced version"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1342"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["119 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1682","title":"Court filings concerning ODM report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrations in the Central Office of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', ODM budget for 1997-98 and 1998-99, motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue, and the process for assessing the equitable allocation of district resources","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1998-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","School administrators","Education, Secondary"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ODM report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrations in the Central Office of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', ODM budget for 1997-98 and 1998-99, motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue, and the process for assessing the equitable allocation of district resources"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1682"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrations in the Central Office of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, order; District Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget for 1997-98 and 1998-99; District Court, notice of process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for summary judgment as to the Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for summary judgment as to the Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) statement of material and undisputed facts; District Court, affidavit of Donald Stewart; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education project management tool; District Court, objection to proposed Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget and motion for enlargement of time; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) objection to proposed Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget and motion for enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN O 31998 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK  B RACIAL COMPOSIDON OF~ DEP. CLERK CERTIFIED STAFF IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND THE ADMINISTRATORS IN THE CENTRAL OFFICE OF THE Ann S.Brown -., Federal Monitor PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT June 3, 1998 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor a-,~- , FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl\u003cANSAS IN THE UNITED STATESTIISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ,JUN O 8 1998 JAMES r McCQRMACK, CLERK By: \\_ ' ~ \\,L ) y'--1...::::-.. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 OEP CLER!( '--. RECEIVED JUN 9 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NB The Court has received the proposed 1998-99 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. See attached letter and budget document. The parties may file any objections to the proposed budget within fifteen (15) calendar days from the entry of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ,f ji'aay of June 1998. ~ n:~~$ UNITED ST ATES DISTRIC JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITtl-,RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON ~/S/2~ ~-~~---- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas - ------'----- ---- - Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor June 4, 1998 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas  Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 The ODM budget for two years, 1997-98 and 1998-99, is attached for the parties' review and your approval. Although the budget is for two years, its format follows that of previous years, including annotation to explain revenue calculations; budget category definitions; budgeted and actual expenses by category for 1996-97; budgeted and estimated expenditures by category for 1997-98; and budgeted expenditures by category for 1998-99. Note that the 1997-98 budget is slightly less than that of the previous year, and that the 1998-99 budget is only a 2. 9% increase over that of each of the previous two years. Salary increases for ODM staff are 3.29% per year, which is the prevailing annual experience step increase on the three local districts' salary scales. Again, I have chosen not to accept an increase in salary. We have contained our expenditures such that they are below the projected annual budgets. As is our practice, we credit that difference proportionately to each of the school districts according to their pro-rated contributions to our annual budgets. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 1997-98 AND 1998-99 BUDGETS I REVENUE 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 LRSD 223,889.00 223,889.00 206,811 .00 206,811 .00 218,671 .00 Credit (see note below) 19,197.00 19,197.00 37,265.00 37,265.00 35,083.00 NLRSD 80,121.00 80,121 .00 74,917.00 74,917.00 80,765.00 Credit (see note below) 6,870.00 6,870.130 13,500.00 13,500.00 12,958.00 PCSSD 184,831.00 184,831 .00 167,958.00 167,958.00 175,935.00 Credit (see note below) 15,848.00 15,848.00 30,265.00 30,265.00 28,227.00 Interest 6,404.29 6,400.00 \"'' c: ::{\" '2 '' {: ;;;::: ::,,,=: :{?: t :::::JidijffiiboJH:: :t:'i~trni ;i ::t:lliij;lti:ltl I:i::: :i;:: :~atliii!rio :: 1::1.~l[~IJ1ti l Note: Evel'f budget cycle, ODM credits each district a pro rata proportion of the 411spent amount of the previous year's budget. We apply this amount toward the current budget allocation. See annotated budget. EXPENDITURES 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 1997-98 1998-9~1 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGE - Communications 7,870.00 8,433.41 8,500.00 9,172.00 9,180.00 Dues and Fees 3,300.00 3,785.00 3,800.00 3,210.00 3,300.00 Equipment 14,1 59.00 14,143.75 785.00 780.00 6,339.00 Food Services 250.00 129.00 200.00 149.00 200.00 Management Services 3,000.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 Periodicals 500.00 350.91 400.00 390.00 400.00 Printinq and Bindinq 6,000.00 5,449.33 6,000.00 4,689.00 6,000.00 Prof. and Tech. Services 28,497.00 2,861 .25 26,497.00 1,308.00 26,497.00 Rent 48,417.00 48,417.00 49,883.00 49,883.00 50,917.00 Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 897.59 1,500.00 460.00 1,500.00 Resource Library 500.00 579.26 500.00 115.00 500.00 Salaries 468,904.00 450,464.40 481 ,145.00 455,145.00 492,614.00 Benefits 120,109.00 96,948.15 122,436.00 114,285.00 125,122.00 Staff Development 1,000.00 996.50 1,000 00 1,243.00 1,000.00 Suoolies 7,750.00 7,481 .16 7,750.00 7,634.00 7,750.00 Travel 19,000.00 14,373.96 18,000.00 11 ,565.00 18,000.00 Insurance 820.00 820.00 820.00 820.00 - :;.:,:,:::.:::::;:,::::'.::::::-::: ,:,:::::=::::::::::::::::::: ;.:,=::,:::::::;::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::c:::=: ::::::t~dltl:!a::: t::ii~IB~I\\I : ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 1997-98 AND 1998-99 'REVENUE - The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis ... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: .. . [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ... 1997-98 Budget: 10/1/97 'It of Total 1997-98 Budget 1996-97 Credit (Budget 1997-98 Budget Enrollment Enrollment Allocation  not spent) Pavment LRSD 24,985 45.99 244,076.00 37,265.00 206 811.00 NLRSD 9,053 16.66 88,417.00 13,500.00 74,917.00 PCSSD 20,295 37.35 198,223.00 30,265.00 167,958.00 State of AR 200,000.00 200 000.00 Total 54,333 100.00 730,716.00 81 ,030.00 649,686.00 1998-99 Budget 10/1/98 'lo of Total 1998-99 Budget 1997-98 Estimated Credit 1998-99 Estimated Enrollment Enrollment Allocation IBudoet not soentl Budoet Pavment LRSD 24,886 46.00 253,754.00 35,083.00 218,671 .00 NLRSD 9,192 16.99 93,723.00 12,958.00 80 765.00 PCSSD 20,024 37.01 204,162.00 28,227.00 175,935.00 State of AR 200,000.00 200,000.00 Total 54,102 100.00 751 ,639.00 76,268.00 675,371 .00 Note: Because the 1998-99 budget is being filed before the current year expenditures are finalized, the 1997-98 credit and the 1998-99 budget payment are estimated. After the close of the 1997-98 year, we will notify each district of the exact amount due for their share of ODM's 1998-99 budget, incorporating each district's exact credt Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the charts above, that we used to determine each district 's contribution to ODM's budgets: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October l enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share (or estimated share) of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM' s budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified at the close of the current fiscal year of the exact amount due for their share of ODM' s budget. Page 2 EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. The estimated expenditures for 1997-98 are based on eleven months of actual expenditures. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. _ 1996-97 Budget 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Expenditures Amount 7,870.00 8,433.41 8,500.00 1997-98 Estimated Excenditures 9,172.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 9,180.00 Expenditures that exceeded the 1997-98 budget were due to adding a phone line for Internet communications and upgrading to an electronic postage meter, as required by the U.S. Postal Service. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 1996-97 Budaet 3,300.00 1996-97 Exoenditures 3.785.00 1997-98 Budgeted Amount 3.800.00 1997-98 Estimated Exoenditures 3,210.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 3.300.00 Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 1996-97 Budqet 14,159.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Expenditures Amount 14,143.75 785.00 1997-98 Estimated Expenditures 780.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 6.339.00 To store the voluminous records that have accumulated in the desegregation_ case and ODM operations, we will use CD's to preserve and catalog them. Therefore, we will purchase a high volume scanner and two new computers, one with a CD read-and-write drive, and the appropriate software. We also plan to replace our aging fax machine with a plain paper fax. Page 3 Food Services: Expenditures for food or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budgeted Budaet Expenditures Amount Expenditures Amount 250.00 129.00 200.00 149.00 200.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 1996-97 Bud et 3,000.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Ex enditures Amount 0.00 1,500.00 1997-98 Estimated Ex nditures 0.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 1,500.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals of less than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 1996-97 Bud et 500.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Ex enditures Amount 350.91 400.00 1997-98 Estimated Ex enditures 390.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 400.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 1996-97 Bud et 6,000.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Ex enditures Amount 5 449.33 6,000.00 1997-98 Estimated Ex enditures 4,689.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 6,000.00 Note: We are able to maintain the cost of this budget item because of in-house printing. Page 4 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budgeted Budget Expendrtures Amount Expenditures Amount 468,904.00 450,464.40 481 ,145.00 455,145.00 492.614.00 Most of the salary changes between 1996-97 and 1997-98 and _between 1997-98 and 1998-99 reflect a 3.29% increase, which is comparable to the annual step increase in the three Pulaski County school districts. Exceptions are noted below. Salaries: Name of Employee 1998-87 Salary 1997-88 Salary 1998-89 Salary Ann Brown 1 104,164.00  104,164.00 104,164.00 Melissa Guldin 2 45,490.00 46,987.00 48,533.00 Gene Jones 3 47,815.00 49,312.00 50,858.00 Norman Marshall 56,863.00 58,734.00 60,666.00 Marqie Powell 56,863.00 58,734.00 60,666.00 Horace Smith 56,863.00 58,734.00 60,666.00 Research Associate4 26,000.00 26,000.00 26,000.00 Polly Ramer 42,683.00 44,087.00 45,537.00 Linda Bryant 23,669.00 24,448.00 25,252.00 Jackie Banks 5 8,494.00 9,945.00 10,272.00 Total 468,904.00 481 ,145.00 492,614.00 1 Ann Brown declined to accept a salary increase for both 1997-98 and 1998-99. 2Melissa Guldin works 4/5 time. 3Gene Jones works 4/5 time. Gene elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits and his salary reflects that decision. 4Position not filled. 5The job responsibilities for Jackie Banks, who works 3/5 time, increased during 1997-98; her salary reflects those additional responsibilities. Page 6 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budgeted Budaet Excenditures Amount Excenditures Amount 120.109.00 96,948.15 122,436.00 114,285.00 125,122.00 Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's 1997-98 budgeted fringe benefits: - Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment ization Ins. lndemnitv Tenn Benefits Brown 1,800.00 5,777.28 12,715.68 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 22,617.60 Guldin 1,200.00 3,686.31 5,782.44 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 12,993.39 Jones 960.00 3,845.81 6,032.64 10,838.45 Marshall 1,200.00 4,584.95 7,048.08 1968.00 . 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,157.67 Powell 1,200.00 4,584.95 7,048.08 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,157.67 Smith 1,200.00 4,584.95 7,048.08 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,157.67 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 8,151 .54 Ramer 3,372.66 5,290.44 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 10,98T74 Brvant 1,870.27 2,933.76 1968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 7,112.11 Banks 760.79 1.193.40 1968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 4,262.27 Total 8,160.00 35,102.87 58,284.60 17,712.00 364.32 1,697.76 548.64 565.92 122.436.11 Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's 1998-99 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Securitv ment ization Ins. lndemnitv Tenn Benefl1s Brown 1,800.00 5.777.28 12,715.68 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 22,617.60 Guldin 1,200.00 3,804.58 5,967.96 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 13,297.18 Jones 960.00 3,964.08 6.218.16 11 ,142.24 Marshall 1,200.00 4,732.75 7,423.92 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,681 .31 Powell 1,200.00 4,732.75 7,423.92 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,681 .31 Smith 1,200.00 4,732.75 7,423.92 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,681 .31 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 8,151 .54 Ramer 3,483.58 5,464.44 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 11 ,272.66 Brvant 1,931.77 3,030.24 1968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 7,270.09 Banks 785.80 1,232.64 1968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 4,326.52 Total 8,160.00 35.980.24 60,092.88 17 712.00 364.32 1,697.76 548.64 565.92 125,121 .76 Page 7 . ' ' .. Staff Development: Services performed by persons ,qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budgeted Budqet Expend~ures Amount Expenditures Amount 1,000.00 996.50 1,000.00 1,243.00 1,000.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-98 Budgeted BudQet Expenditures Amount Expend~ures Amount 7,750.00 7,481 .16 7,750.00 7,634.00 7,750.00 Travel: Expenditure for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence ( room and board) also are charged here. 1996-97 Bud et 19,000.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Ex end~ures Amount 14,373.96 18,000.00 1997-98 Estimated Ex end~ures 11 ,565.00 1997-98 Budgeted Amount 18,000.00 Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budget BudQet Expenditures/ Amount Expenditures Amount 820.00 820 .. 00 820.00 820.00 On our auditor's recommendation, we purchased insurance on the furnishings and equipment in our office. Page 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES RECEIVED JUN 9 199B OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Process for Assessing the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. Section 2.9.1 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 (\"Revised Plan\") provides: Within sixty (60) days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2. In compliance with Section 2.9.1, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, has developed a process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. LRSD, working with Joshua and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), shall: (a) Identify the resources the District will assess for equitable allocation; f:-~.001 (b) Develop a standard or standards for assessing the extent to which those resources are being distributed on an equitable basis; (c) Assess the allocation of resources based on the standard or standards developed; and, (d) Report the results of the assessment to ODM and Joshua. 3. This process will be completed on a timeline consistent with the issuance of a final report within 180 days of this Court's approval of the Revised Plan as pr?vided in Section 2.9.2 of the Revised Plan. 4. In the above process, LRSD shall consult with the one or both of the desegregation experts retained by LRSD in compliance with Section 2 . 1. 1 of the Revised Plan . Joshua has approved LRSD I s - retention of Terrance Roberts, one of the original \"Little Rock Nine,\" and Steven Ross, a professor at the University of Memphis, to assist LRSD in development of the programs, policies and procedures required by the Revised Plan. r:lhomolfendlcyllnd\\des-pld.001 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2 Christopher Hell John C. Fendley, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 9th day of June, 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm 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 Hell John c. Fendley, 3 RECEIVED JUN I 6 1998 - OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER F!LJ2D U.S. OISTI I;cr COURT EASTi:RN 0IS1 .I.ICT ARKANSAS ,JUN 151998 JAt1ES W] Mc!MACK, CLERK 8y: '\\r , ~ \\t /\\ QC:, Qr-._ DEP C!.E~t - ' By previous Order entered on June 8, 1998, this Court indicated that it had received the proposed 1998-99 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and directed the parties to file any objections\u003e the proposed budget within fifteen (15) calendar days from the entry of the Court's Order. That Order should have indicated that this Court received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the years 1998-2000. The parties have to and including June 23, 1998 in which to file any objections to the proposed budget. ....,--(l\\_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /5 day of June 1998. fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN .:;QMPUANCE WiTHJtULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP :\u003eN (zl(s-/'l K' BY ~..- - ---- 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE LRSD PCSSD for its motion states: JUN 2 2 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Pursuant to the pooling agreement and previous orders of this Court, the LRSD owes the PCSSD interest of $96,899.62 calculated at six (6) percent. 2. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court and the Court of Appeals, LRSD owes the PCSSD $1,324,063.28 pursuant to the pooling agreement including the last two school years. After deducting the pooling sums owed the LRSD, the net sum due PCSSD is $1,291,103.52. 3. Appended to this motion as Exhibit \"A\" is the worksheet utilized by Dr. Stewart to calculate the interest and depicting the pooling funds owed the PCSSD. The pooling calculations were performed precisely as they have been performed in the past. 4. Requests and demands made to the LRSD to pay over these sums have proven unsuccessful. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing the LRSD to immediately pay over the sums set forth above. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ~ , -- ~ ~ M. Sal')1 el nes 111 \"('Z-6060) Attor,neys fo Pula\u0026 County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June /1 , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 nes, Ill 2 ----- 06/18191 INTEREST COMPUTATION ON M-to-M POOLING FUNDS 08/18198 PRE ORDER INTEREST  LRSO - . -  . . BEG. DATE ENO DATE DUE TO INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL ouE ORO.QATE LRSO RATE EARNED P\u0026I - .. 01/15192 0?/3Q~ 1.116 47!5.83 .. . .. POST O. RDER INTERE~.T  LRSO - ... --. 07/31/96 ~L30/98 $116 47!5.83 6.00% S13 -383.55  . TOTALS .. $118 47!5.83 $13,383.55 $1~,859.38 PRE ORDE.. R INTERES'.f'_ PCSSO  -- . -- .  BEG. DATE ENO DATE CUETO INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL QUE ORD. DATE PCSSD ... RATE EARNED .. . Pll . . --- -- 01/15193 0713019G $150,-472.~~  -- - ... 01/15194 07/30/96 $103,378.01 01/15/96 07/30/96 $207.920.13 .. ... . . 01/16/96 07/30/96 .. -~72,4Q4.11 -  BAL. or:,, 07/30/96 s73:4~.40 $0.00    . POST .O. R... O~R INTEREST - PCSSO -- 01/15/97 07/29/97 $436,200.10 6.00% $13,982.30 -- 07/31/96 . . 07/29/97 $73',26'.40 ... 8.00% $43,81.C.~ .... - PAIi;) . 07/29(97 1$34!52M.~ .. IS19 951.65 :-=-\u003e-. BALQ.N 07/29/97 S82!5170.(M s.,7 8'!.12 l~_TEREST EARNED AmR PAV ON 07/29197 - - 07/30/97 06/30/98 $825,170.04 6.1~% $,45, 4-40.87 - -  . 01/15198 .. . 06/30/98 $498.893.2-4 . 8.00% S13,613... 63 . TOTA L OUE PCSS[ ... $1 324.063.28 S96 8i9.62 $1 .420.962.90 NET DUE PCS$0 06/30/98 $1.291.103.52 -  .  - . EXHIBIT I A '--- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 2 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR!~~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE LRSD In affirming this Court's last pooling order, the Court of Appeals noted: \"The district court's interpretation of paragraph \"O\" is an acceptable one: it is just, it will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools, and it will provide a financial incentive to both districts to receive M-to-M transfer students. 109 F.3d 514 at 516.\" In affirming this Court's order for essentially the reasons stated in this Court's last opinion, the Court of Appeals quoted the finding of this Court that: [F]or each school year, the amount of LRSD's and PCSSD's financial contribution to the pool is calculated in accordance with Paragraph O of the Settlement Agreement. [There is no dispute as to the methodology for calculating these amounts.] The total amount of funds in the pool for a given year is then divided by the total number of M-to-M students in the interdistrict schools in both districts to arrive at an equalized, per-student dollar amount for educating them in the interdistrict schools. For each school district, the equalized per-student dollar amount is then multiplied by the number of M-to-M stude11ts hosted by that district in its interdistrict schools to determine the amount of the pooled funds to which each district is entitled. ' Id. at 515-516. The PCSSD has calculated its entitlement in accordance with the foregoing language. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By__t,~~~::s,_~~=-------, I (76060) ski County Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June I~ . 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVE.~ JUN 2 2 1998 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS 1. The worksheet appended to the motion as Exhibit \"A\" accurately calculates the post-order interest due the PCSSD. 2. Exhibit \"A\" accurately calculates the pooling sums due the PCSSD from the LRSD including the last two school years. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 B-~A~~::::s._...::::;,.4-1--___ _ Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June /'7 , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown QOM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ones, Ill u 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF DR. DONALD STEWART PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Don Stewart and I have testified on numerous occasions in this case. Attached to the motion for summary judgment as Exhibit \"A\" is a worksheet that I prepared. The worksheet was prepared in accordance with the methodology I have consistently applied regarding the pooling issue and was done pursuant to the methodology described by this Court in its order July 29, 1997. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 19th day of June. 1998. My Commission Expires: ~ ~c ~o )--. :1-~ Notary Public =t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June /f , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown QOM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL 1 1998 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG PLAINTIFF . v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for June, 1998. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General eyGeneral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 .Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education RECEIVED JUN 21./ 1998 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORltJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ODM BUDGET AND MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME fJNIMO!INOW NOl1V93HS3S30 ~o 3a1:1:10 866i  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1701","title":"Court filings concerning ADE's July 1998 semiannual monitoring report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ADE's July 1998 semiannual monitoring report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1701"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitorinig report; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 6 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONffORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO .. 1, et al. ADE'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ITS DEFENDANTS OBLIGATION TO FILE ITS JULY, 1998 SEMIANNUAL MONITORING REPORT The Arkansas Department of Education hereby moves the Court for an order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July 1, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report so that ADE can concentrate its resources toward developing proposed modifications of its monitoring and reporting obligations. The motion is made on the following grounds: I. ADE believes that its monitoring and reporting obligations, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the \"Allen Letter,\" ADE' s Implementation Plan, and this Court's orders, can and should be modified so as to better assist the parties in their efforts to comply with their desegregation obligations and provide quality education in the public schools in Pulaski County. 2. With the approval of the State Board of Education, ADE is committed to working with the Districts, the Joshua and Knight Intervenors, and ODM to develop proposed modifications of ADE' s monitoring and reporting obligations that can be presented to this Court later this year for the Court's approval. 1 - 3. Over the next two months ADE personnel will be expending a substantial amount of time producing, reviewing, and finalizing ADE's July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. ADE believes that the time, energy and other resources that would be expended to complete the July report can be more productively directed toward working with the parties and ODM to develop proposed modifications to ADE' s current monitoring and reporting responsibilities. 4. Should this motion be granted, ADE will keep the Court apprised of its activities and progress toward developing proposed modifications via ADE' s Project Management Tools, which are currently filed by ADE on the last business day of each month. 5. ADE is authorized to state that PCSSD and NLRSD do not object to the relief sought in this motion. Counsel for LRSD, Joshua and Knight were contacted concerning this motion but have not, as of the time this motion is sent for filing, indicated whether they would object to the relief ADE seeks. WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court enter an order relieving ADE of its obligation to file the July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. 2 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant A ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on May 5, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 6 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONrrORING LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ADE'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ITS DEFENDANTS OBLIGATION TO FILE ITS JULY, 1998 SEMIANNUAL MONITORING REPORT Both this Court and the Eighth Circuit have approved modifications to the parties' obligations under the Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans when changed circumstances and conditions have so warranted. See, e.g., Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1998) (approving LRSD's closure of Ish incentive school); see also this Court's order entered April 10, 1998 (approving, in the alternative, LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan as a modification of LRSD's 1990 plan). However, this Court has made it clear that any modifications of the parties' desegregation obligations must be first developed by the parties and then submitted to this Court for approval. ADE believes that its current monitoring and reporting obligations, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the so-called \"Allen Letter,\"1 ADE' s Implementation Plan, 1 In this motion, the \"Allen Letter\" refers to a letter to the parties (copied to Judge Woods) dated May 31, 1989, from William Allen (then outside counsel for the State Board of Education), which included a plan for monitoring . 1 and the orders of this Court, can and should be modified. Oearly, circumstances and conditions in this case have changed materially since mid-1989. The Allen Letter was drafted nearly nine years ago, and even then it was contemplated that the monitoring plan would need to be modified in the future as circumstances changed.2 Further, among other things, since 1989 the Districts have been released from this Court's supervision over some aspects of their desegregation plans, this Court recently approved LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, PCSSD's motion for \"unitary status\" is pending before this Court, and many of ADE's specific funding obligations to the Districts have either been completed or are in their final stages.3 The Eighth Circuit \"stated early on that the passage of time would necessitate modifications in the desegregation plans.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, supra, 56 F.3d at 914 (citing Appeal of Little - Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 254 (8th Cir. 1991). In December of 1996 this Court granted LRSD' s motion for a \"plan development period\" to enable the LRSD to devote more of its resources toward working with the parties to develop proposed modifications to its desegregation plan. As a result, LRSD compensatory education programs in the Districts. In its order dated December IO, 1993, this Court found that the \"Allen Letter'' set forth ADE's monitoring obligations under the Settlement Agreement. 2 In the Allen Letter, which was drafted and submitted far in advance of the Eighth Circuit's opinion approving the Settlement Agreement, vacating the order establishing the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor, and ordering the establishment of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, Mr. Allen noted that ADE \"anticipate[d] that the . . . plan may be modified after receiving [the parties'] comments and after [ADE] learn[ ed] more about the monitoring role that will be undertaken by [the Metropolitan Supervisor].\" 3 For example, compensatory education payments to LRSD under VI.A.(l) of the Settlement will end in January ofnext year; payments in lieu of formula guarantees to LRSD under Vl.A.(2) ended in July of 1995; payments to PCSSD under VIl.2.(a) and (b) of the Settlement ended in July of 1994 and 1995, respectively; and compensatory education payments to NLRSD under VIII.B. and C. of the Settlement ended at the close of the 1996-97 school year. 2 was able to work with the parties to successfully produce a revised plan that this Court approved last month. ADE, with the approval of the State Board of Education, is committed to working with all parties to this case to develop proposed modifications to its monitoring and reporting obligations that can be presented to this Court for approval later this year. However, during the next two months ADE will be expending a substantial amount of time and resources to produce, review, and finalize the July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. ADE believes that it and the parties to this case would benefit from a \"hiatus\" on the production of the July, 1998 report (analogous to LRSD' s \"plan development period\") during which the time, energy and other resources that would be expended to complete the July report could be more productively directed toward working with the parties and ODM to develop proposed modifications to ADE' s current monitoring and reporting responsibilities. Accordingly, ADE respectfully requests that the Court relieve it of its obligation to serve and file the July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. 3 By: Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMO . G G R #95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on May 5, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon\u0026Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 --z:-~ Tim.0th Gau er 4 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 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MAY l 2 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO ADE'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ITS OBLIGATION TO FILE ITS JULY, 1998 SEMIANNUAL MONITORING REPORT For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) - states that it has no objection to ADE's motion. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Byb~~~~~~-;t;,.~~c._- r1.stopher Helle Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Response to ADE's Motion For Relief From Its Obligation to File Its July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United states mail on this 8th day of May, 1998. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones . WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS  2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 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 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 General 2 RECEIVED MAY 1 9 1998 OFFlCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is the Arkansas Department of Education's (\"ADE\") motion requesting relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitoring report. The ADE states in its motion that its monitoring and reporting obligations, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the\" Allen Letter,\" the ADE's Implementation Plan, and this Court's Orders, can and should be modified so as to better assist the parties in their efforts to comply with their desegregation obligations and provide quality education in the public schools in Pulaski County. If this Court should grant the ADE relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitoring report, the ADE, with approval of the State Board of Education, has committed to working with the Districts, the Joshua and Knight Intervenors, and the Office of Desegregation Mopitoring (\"ODM\") to develop p~oposed modifications to the ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The ADE suggests that the proposed modifications then be presented to this Court later this year for the Court's approval. The ADE has stated that it will keep this 1 5 5 Court apprised of its activities and its progress towards developing the proposed modifications via the ADE's Project Management Tools, which are currently filed by the ADE on the last business day of each month. This Court grants the ADE's motion relieving the ADE of its obligation to file a July 1, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. During the time period in which the ADE would be preparing its July 1 Report, the ADE shall work with the Districts, the Joshua and Knight Intervenors, and the ODM to develop proposed modifications to the ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The ADE should keep this Court apprised of its activities and progress regarding the proposed modifications via the ADE's Project Management Tools. 11\\_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS / g' day of May 1998. / fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ~OM~CE,T'fULE58AND/?~~FRCP ,N t g_ 71 BY _ _j/L~.~------' ' 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for May, 1998. Li=dc:l ; n I ;b.,..~\"1 Abt : fy-~1cd ~en\"~\"\"}. t.octl \".ftbo .. f-() Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JI_;,\\) 1 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIFlfifGREGATION MONITOR/MS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2.  Actual as of May 30, 1998 ~~t~~~iRa~~~,~~l~~i; i~~~~~t.~Ngl~1iaif lt.a~~tl~uff.~f.B~r.cur~te.:~a0e. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  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 Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1679","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD's March 24 plan, ADE project management tool, and ODM ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'' report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School facilities","School buildings","Education, Secondary","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD's March 24 plan, ADE project management tool, and ODM ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'' report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1679"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["48 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, joint motion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Joshua for approval of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) March 24 plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Joshua for approval of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) plan; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.   t' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LRC-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MQJIQN EQB ENLARGEMENT Of IIME PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 24, 1998, this Court ordered PCSSD and Joshua to submit, within ten days, the agreed amendment to the PCSSD Desegregation Plan together with a joint motion, brief in support and proposed notice. The parties desire an enlargement of time to comply with the Court's Order until and including April 9, 1998. WHEREFORE, Joshua and the PCSSD pray for an enlargement of time until and Including April 9, 1998 within which to comply with the Court's directive. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 c00d THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 dll SEIN I NH3.f '8 '.!-.3S@ I 7 'lH':l I ~M \u003e t CERTIFICATE OF EBYICE On April ___(_ ~_, 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Janes 425 West Capltol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 00d 2 dll S':JN I tlN3f '8 ' X3SCTN I 7 ' lH':J I df~ RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AP.KANSAS APR 8 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR O 71998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JA~AES ! M~MACK, C~ERK By. ~ ) c}_ ~ D!:P CL.fR.~ ' UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,  Plaintiff,  vs.  No. LR-C-82-866  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants,   MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.,  lntervenors,   KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.,  Intervenors.  ORDEB. Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District  (\"PCSSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting a continuance to and including April 9, 1998 in which to file their agreed proposed Revised PCSSD Desegregation Plan, in addition to a joint motion and brief in support requesting that the Court approve the proposed Revised Plan and a notice regarding the proposed Revised Plan.  This Court grants the parties' request. The PCSSD and Joshua have to and including April 9, 1998 in which to file these documents and pleadings. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7~ day of April 1998. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTER COMP~ce T RuJ~e c:g,0OcRK7er SHEET IN ON  7/ 8 l!Y 7Z1-:: 9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT APR 8 199,9 EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESE6REGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR O 7 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * JA~ES W. ~~ORMACK, CLERK By.. 'L 'QI ,u D 41 V'-:a DEP CI.ERll Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a reply filed by Ms. Hafeeza Majeed on April 6, 1998 on - behalf of Toe Fact-Finding Committee for the Little Rock School Desegregation Plan--Is It Working for African-American Youth?\" Ms. Majeed filed this reply in response to Mr. John Walker's letter regarding Ms. Majeed's initial objection to the proposed January 16 Revised LRSD Desegregation Plan. 1 The Clerk is hereby directed to serve the parties involved in this case with copies of this Order and attached Exhibit A. 2 By separate Order, the Court will inform the parties how the   Court will proceed in regard to Ms. Majeed's latest filing. 1 See Docket No. 3130 for a copy of Ms. Majeed's initial objection. See Docket No. 3135 for Mr. Walker's response to Ms. Majeed's objection. 2 The Clerk should also send copies to the following individuals: Mr. Markton Cole Ms. Hafeeza B. Majeed 7320 S. Ridgeland Ave. 2A 8505 Holmes, #174. .. Chicago, Illinois 60649 Kansas City, Missouri 64131 ; . i IT IS SO ORDERED TiilS  day of April 1998. fHIS DOCUMENT E1.JTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ;~~ t'$RULE s:;N~(a) FRCP - . ,, \\. 2 .. ,. . ' . ~:' : \" : April 6, 1998 TO: FROM: ;-;:: ,. :l rr.: --..... U~- -~ - . _ ) ... .'?  :.. . I'~., , . 1. I l I  , _ _ EAs, .:Hr, c:, ie:~ -\u003c, ~.'-: .. ,1r The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -'..' .. l.-f  ' :_;,:s,\\s Federal Judge Eastern District of Arlamsas, Western Di~ U 6 [SJ J/l.~:1:::~ ,., i i~l'.C'R . \" The Fact-Findina Conmiittee for the Little Rock S:choortiisTtfor ,,\\,,.._, /(, CCRK D~H,,-.,-in ftllBl h It w~ Pw MHv1B1Amm,1m Ym;f,91'' THROUGH: Hafeeza B. Majeed, Cbairpenon RE; LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Judge Wright: V: LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOTICE (EXHIBIT C, JANU'ARY 16 REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN'') The following open letter to Little Rock School District students.parents. and friends. is also a formal request desiring your approval: \"OPEN LETTER JO 11IE UITLI ROCK COMMUNITY\" \"Thank yor/' to the maoy friends and supporters ofThe Fa.rt-Finding Committee with whom I met and enjoyed talkin! to during the weekend. A special iha:nk yor/\u003e to those who supported our efforts with your signatures. AB promised to you, the following request to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright has been submitted in your behalf 1. We, the 1D1dersigned, recognize that we are represented in the Joshua Class, as defined by the attached \"Notice.'' (Exhibit C. LRSD January 16 Revised ..,. . 3. Plan)  We agree that we were provided a copy of the ~otice .. by the Fact-Finding Committee, represented by Ms. HafeezaB. Majeed. We agree, like several others who chose not place their signatures, that we have not been informed about the information contained in the attached \"Notice'' regarding the proposed Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We believe that the responsibility for BIDlOIDlcing this information to the cormmmity should rest with ColDlSel for Joshua, Attorney Jolm W. Walker, as well as with the LR.SD Board ofDirectors, as designated in the \"Notice.\" We ~e that we have not been informed by the Little Rock School District regarding information contained in the \"Notice.'' Therefore, we respectfully request that you delay your approval or disapproval of the Revised LR.SD Desegregation and Education Plan, pending the following:  Court's Exhibit A 1. Counsel for the Joshua Class, Attorney John W. Walker, should schedule a fonnal hearing to adequately iofonn the Joshua Cius about the Revised LRSD Desesregation and Education Piao. This hearing shall be scheduled at a time conducive to the schedules of working parentl. 2. The hearing shall be attended by a representative fi-om The Fact-Finding Committee, a representative from the LRSD , a represeotative :from ODM. and the Joshua Class. 3. Io sight of the fact that many persons who are defined as \"Joshua\" have not been afforded adequate and timely information regarding the Revised LRSD Desegregation and Education Plan; we request that the LRSD anno1mce an extended deadline to receive written objections to the Piao. The Fact-Finding Committee prayermlly seeks yow approval of this request that represents the concerns ofLRSD Pareots, students, aod friends who were interviewed by our representative, Ms. Hafeeza B. Majeed, during the weekend. Again, ''thank yoli' :from The Fact-Finding Committee. and we shall continue to \"Fight For Our Children.\" Respectfully,  J L ~ 1f. fr[a1u,f Hafee:1-~*ed, Chairperson f' cc: All Signees ColDlSel for Joshua Class LRSD ODM Attachments ---------- - - --- -- - - - ---- ---- - ------ - -- - -  .. - - -------- - - --  --- - - . . . -  - - - . . - ---- EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1003-1 071) ROBERT S. LINOSEY ( 1013- 1001) ISAAC A. SCOTT,_./R . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULOROW-N. M. NORTON EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAODEN WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 llTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 379-0442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD April 9, 1998 ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR . HARRY S. HURST . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY, JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY M. ROBINSON BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H. LANG KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol, Room 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 HAND DELIVERED Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Dear Judge Wright: APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed are copies of each of the items you directed the PCSSD and Joshua to prepare as regards the amendment to the PCSSD Plan. I have retained the originals for the moment as they do not bear Mr. Walker's signature. Mr. Walker has indicated some doubt about his execution of these documents and I am simply submitting copies so as to comply with the Court's deadline as best I can. By copy of this letter to Mr. Walker, I am asking him to communicate his current position .~o the Court. MSJ/jhs Enclosures Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP Jon~_,/ I I I cc: Counsel of record (w/encl.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE!VED APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF PCSSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF PCSSD'S MARCH 24 PLAN Defendant Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the Joshua - lntervenors (\"Joshua\") for their Joint Motion for Approval of PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan state: 1. Joshua and PCSSD move for tentative and, ultimately, final approval of PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit \"A\"). 2. On October 14, 1997, PCSSD filed its Petition seeking release from federal court jurisdiction (the Petition). Prior to the start of the hearing on the Petition, PCSSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop an amended plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan. The PCSSD Board of Directors approved the Plan on March 23, 1998 and authorized submission of the Plan to this Court for approval. 3. PCSSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this tit Motion: a. That the record in this case supports modification of PCSSD's desegregation obligations; b. That the March 24, 1998 Plan is an appropriate modification of PCSSD's desegregation obligations. c. That the March 24, 1998 Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members; and, d. That, upon approval of the Plan, the PCSSD should be dismissed as a party to this case except as respects its financial claims arising under the settlement agreement. 4. PCSSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement should not be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, PCSSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua class members to submit written objections to approval of the March 24, 1998 Plan. PCSSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. PCSSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; shall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers; and shall prominently post the notice at all schools. 5. PCSSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, PCSSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members; that the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B be published at least thirty (30) 2 days bef~re the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections; and that this Court finally approve PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 By: 3 THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 By: _________ _ John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April ___ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill 4 Section 1: Pulaski County Special School District Plan Dated March 24, 1998 Prior Agreements and Orders. RECEIVED APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 1. This Plan, which is a \"Desegregation and Education Plan,\" shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreeme:nts and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 ( \"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; e. The Interdistrict Plan; and f. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Plan. SECTION 2: Obligations. 2.1. PCSSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to - comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past EXHIBIT 1 I A APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF PCSSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF PCSSD'S PLAN This motion is brought pursuant to the amendment provision of the Pulaski County Special School Distirict permanent Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, as well as Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1., 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995); Appeal of the Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F .2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991 ); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 By: _________ _ John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April ___ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill 2 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STAff.S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA IBERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * No. LR-C-82-866 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FBLED US. ulS T;;:1cT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR!\u003cANSAS APR 1 0 1998 Before the Court are the initial joint motion and the renewed joint motion filed by the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting that this Court approve the LRSD's proposed Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"LRSD Proposed Revised Plan\" or \"proposed Plan\").1 L Approval of the Proposed Plan After evaluating the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court hereby grants the joint motions filed by the LRSD and Joshua and hereby approves the proposed Plan. 1 Docket Nos. 3107 and 3136. 1 A. In 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the current version ofLRSD Desegregation and Education Plan or the 1990 Plan. In 1996, after the LRSD had operated under the 1990 Plan for six (6) years, this Court scheduled a series of hearings to gather evidence upon which to evaluate the success of the 1990 Plan, along with the settlement plans of the other districts, and the desegregation remedies endorsed therein. 2 At that time, even though the Court had withdrawn supervision over certain aspects of the 1990 Plan, there remained portions of that Plan which were of concern to the Court. Therefore, the Court called expert witnesses to testify, and invited the parties to call other expert witnesses to testify, regarding desegregation remedies in general in an attempt to aid the Court and the parties in evaluating the effectiveness of the 1990 Plan. Those evidentiary hearings were held in May of 1996.3 At those hearings and on several other occasions, the Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present for Court approval any proposed modifications to the desegregation and education plans under which they operate. In December of 1996, the LRSD requested and this Court approved a \"plan development period\" in which the LRSD could concentrate its efforts on developing such modifications to the 1990 Plan, in an attempt to 2 Docket No. 2631. 3 The following expert witnesses testified: (1) Herbert J. Walberg, Ph.D., then a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago . See Docket No. 2692. (2) David J. Armor, Ph.D., then a Research Professor at George Mason University in the Institute of Public Policy. See Docket Nos. 2693, 2694. (3) Gary Orfield, Ph.D., then a Professor of Education and Social Policy at Harvard University and the Director of The Harvard Project on School Desegregation. See Docket No. 2768. 2 improve education and desegregation within the district. Some time during this period, the LRSD commenced negotiations with Joshua regarding modifications to the 1990 Plan. As a result of those negotiations, the LRSD and Joshua agreed upon the provisions included in the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan currently before the Court. B. The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan: shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S .D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 5 Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that because the law strongly favors settlements, courts should hospitably receive them, especially in cases such as this in which the parties have engaged in protracted, highly divisive litigation and in which any lasting solution necessarily depends upon the good faith and cooperation of all of the parties. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Spec. Sch. Dist., 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (811, Cir. 1990). When evaluating a settlement agreement, \"O]udges should not substitute their own 4 Docket No. 2901. 5 Docket No. 3107, Exhibit A, at 1. 3 judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" 921 F.2d at 1385 (quoting Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Dirs. of the City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7111 Cir. 1980)). The district court must consider the proposal as submitted by the parties. \"Of course, the district court may suggest modifications but ultimately, it must consider the proposal as a whole and as submitted. Approval must then be given or withheld.\" Id. at 1383 ( quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm 'n of the City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 630 (91h Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1217 (1983)). Although settlement agreements carry with them a presumption of acceptability, id at 1385, a district court need not automatically approve every settlement agreement the parties submit, id at 13 83 . A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in  an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed, they are not pennitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. Id. at 1383 . \"[B]efore a settlement agreement may be rejected because it initiates or authorizes a clearly illegal or unconstitutional practice, prior judicial decisions must have found that practice to be illegal or unconstitutional as a general rule.\" Id at 1385 (quoting Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 321). In the area of desegregation law, the Supreme Court has detennined that the Constitution does not of its own force forbid all-African-American schools. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 26 (1971). The Constitution of its own force also does not require any particular racial percentage in various schools in the districts. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-41 (1974). Furthermore, the Constitution of its own force does not demand that all students 4 regardless of race satisfy national achievement norms. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 100-01 (1995). Obviously, parties in a desegregation case may and indeed should agree to eliminate the effects of prior de Jure segregation to the extent practicable. However, the details of such efforts are not specifically dictated by the Constitution. Even if the court is uncertain that the means proposed in the settlement agreement will succeed in integrating the district or concerned that the lack of sufficient detail in the settlement agreement may impede successful implementation, such concerns alone do not render the settlement agreement unconstitutional on its face, especially when the parties to the settlement agreement have consented to continued monitoring. 921 F.2d at 1385-86. This Court has carefully reviewed the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan as jointly submitted by the LRSD and Joshua and concludes that the Revised Plan is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. The parties have consented to continued monitoring by this Court. Although the Court acknowledges that the Revised Plan will present new challenges in regard to monitoring, these anticipated challenges do not render the Revised Plan unworkable or plainly unconstitutional. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be and hereby is approved. C. In the alternative, if this Court were to consider the proposed Plan as simply a modification of the 1990 Plan, this Court would approve the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. A party seeking modification of a consent decree \"must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree.\" Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). If the moving party meets this burden, the District Court 5 must then detennine \"whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.\" Id. at 39 1. The modification \"must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation,\" nor \"strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it confonns to the constitutional floor.\" Id. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. , 56 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). This Court concludes, after reviewing the circumstances of this case and the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, that this standard for modifying a consent decree has been satisfied. Based upon the voluminous Court record generated by this case since the 1990 Plan was instituted and based upon the conclusions which may be drawn from the evidentiary hearings conducted by this Court in May of 1996, this Court concludes that circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant modifying the 1990 Plan. Specifically, there are certain aspects of the 1990 Plan that have been successfully implemented by the LRSD. Some areas of the 1990 - Plan have been so successfully implemented that this Court has withdrawn supervision over those areas. However, there are other stated goals in the 1990 Plan which have not been achieved. Evidence in the record tends to indicate that the LRSD has put forth minimal effort to achieve certain of these stated goals. More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD6 and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. 7 Therefore, the 1990 Plan warrants 6 For example, the sections of the 1990 Plan regarding Student Assignment and Facilities are out of date with regard to the current situation that exists in the LRSD. 7 Specifically, the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparity may never be met, regardless of the effort put forth by the LRSD. See the testimony of Dr. Walberg, Docket No. 2692, at 17-25; Dr. Armor, Docket No. 2693, at 18-39; and Dr. Orfield, Docket No. 2768, at 25-31. 6 - -- - - - modification. Furthermore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. The LRSD Proposed Revised Plan is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances, does not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation, and has not been rewritten to conform only to the constitutional floor. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be approved. D. Having approved the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court notes that once a modification to a consent decree or a decree itself has been approved by the Court, its terms, . including the details, become binding on the parties. 921 F.2d at 1384. Although at this time the - Court does not anticipate the need for further modification, the Court does wish to clarify that if progress under this Revised Plan is clearly insufficient or if certain sections of the Revised Plan should prove to be unworkable, the parties may again apply for a modification of the Revised Plan. Consent decrees partake of the nature of contracts, as well as of judicial action, and parties seeking to change them bear an extremely heavy burden. They are not, however, immutable in any absolute sense, and extraordinary circumstances can arise that would enable the District Court, within its discretion, to consider modifications. Id. at 1387. II. Objections to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan By previous Order, this Court directed the LRSD to provide notice of the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan and set March 13, 1998 as the deadline for receiving objections to the 7 - proposed Plan from individual members of the Joshua Class and from other parties to the litigation. 8 Dr. Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of the LRSD, submitted an affidavit indicating that the LRSD had complied with the Court's Order regarding notice of the proposed Plan. 9 A. The Court notes that although the other school districts and parties in this case were not involved in the negotiations which produced this proposed Plan, those parties were given notice of the proposed Plan and of their ability to object. 10 None of those parties have filed an objection with this Court to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. B. On the last day for filing objections, Mr. Markton Cole, on behalf of \"The FactFinding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan--Is It Working For African-American Youthr (\"Fact-Finding Committee\"), filed several documents which he characterized as an objection to the proposed Plan. 11 The documents which Mr. Cole filed included a letter from Ms. Hafeeza Majeed, the Chairperson of the Fact-Finding Committee, and a report initially submitted by the Fact-Finding Committee to the Court on September 20, 1996. In response to the documents filed by Mr. Cole, Mr. John Walker, counsel for Joshua, filed a letter essentially requesting that this Court strike the documents and not consider the 8 Docket No. 3114. 9 Docket No. 3131. 10 Docket No. 3114. 11 Docket No. 3130. 8 - documents an objection to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. 12 Mr. Walker claims inter alia: (1) that the documents filed by Mr. Cole and Ms. Majeed had been previously submitted to and considered by this Court; (2) that the documents pertained to the LRSD Desegregation and Education Plan entered into by the LRSD and Joshua in 1990 (\"the 1990 Plan\"), not the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan currently before the Court; and (3) that Mr. Cole and Ms. Majeed lack legal standing to object because they are not residents of the LRSD and do not otherwise allege that either they or their own children will be harmed by the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. This Court agrees with Mr. Walker's assertions and hereby strikes the documents filed by Mr. Cole on behalf of the Fact-Finding Committee and Ms. Majeed. Specifically, the Fact-Finding Committee report filed by Mr. Cole was previously submitted to this Court in September  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1695","title":"Court filings concerning exhibit and witness lists, affidavit of Leslie V. Carnine, ODM ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1998-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Finance","School management and organization","School integration","School discipline","School facilities","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning exhibit and witness lists, affidavit of Leslie V. Carnine, ODM ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1695"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["71 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Joshua's exhibit list for March 24, 1998, hearing; District Court, Joshua's witness list for March 24, 1998, hearing; District Court, Joshua's supplemental exhibit list for March 24, 1998, hearing; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) witness and exhibit list; District Court, supplemental responses to the Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD), affidavit of Leslie V. Carnine; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, order; District Court, renewed joint motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY MAR 9 1QGP lv ...., v LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OFFlCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 1998 TO: Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. . Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. A ~oo Capitol Towers ~apitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FROM: John W. Walker Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026 Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ms. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD, et al. v. PCSSD, et al.; NO. LR-C-82-866 ENCLOSURES: JOSHUA'S EXHIBIT LIST FOR MARCH 24, 1998 HEARING JOSHUA'S WITNESS LIST FOR MARCH 24, 1998 HEARING IF ANY OF THE ABOVE LISTED DOCUMENT(S) ARE NOT ENCLOSED, PLEA.SE CALL THE A.BOVE NUMBER. THANK YOU. --:;_ _----------- .,._ RECE,rlED - MAR 9 i998 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION .--, -  - ~ ..J -i _ , ' ! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S EXHIBIT LIST FOR MARCH 24, 1998 HEARING The Joshua Intervenors submits the documents as exhibits for the hearing scheduled herein for the week of March 24, 1998: 1. PCSSD assessments and evaluations of programs 2. PCSSD academic achievement statistics from 1993 to present . 3. PCSSD discipline statistics from 1992 to present 4. PCSSD recruitment report from 1994 to present 5. PCSSD staff development reports from 1994 to present 6. PCSSD gifted and talented reports from 1994 to present 7. PCSSD extracurricular activities including athletic and nonathletic programs reports from 1994 to present 8. ODM report on Achievement Disparity dated 6/21/95 9. 1998 ODM report on Racial Balance 10. 1998 ODM report on Discipline 11. ODM Report on Staffing dated 9/15/95 12. Excerpts of testimony from Gary Orfield dated May 30, 1996 13. PCCSD reports on Racial Isolation from 1994 to present 14. PCSSD reports 15. PCSSD Discipline Management system 16. PCSSD reports on In-School Suspension and Saturday School 17. PCSSD reports on Pupil Personnel Committee regarding expulsion recommendations 18. PCSSD reports on multicultural education frdm 1994 to present 19. PCSSD reports on special education from 1994 to present 20. UALR reports of PCSSD programs on academic achievement 21. PCSSD reports from the Office of Desegregation from 1994 to present 22. Report of Billy Bowles and Charles Green re: Robinson High School dated November 11, 1996 . 23. ODM Recommmendations regarding Robinson High School 24. Photographs of racial epitah on PCSSD school bus 25. Diagram of racial epitahs on PCSSD property 26 . Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Bobby Lester 27. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony Bobby Altom 28. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Billy Bowles 29. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Eddie Collins 30. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Charles Green 31. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Tommie Anthony 32. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Gary Miller By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 ( 374-3758 CERT I FI CAT I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this 6th day of March, 1998. RECEIVED ' MAR 9 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ey: - - -----=----=--,- ...,..~ -~, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT v...: :'  .._ _.: ,. .. \\ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S WITNESS LIST FOR MARCH 24, 1998 HEARING The Joshua Intervenors submits the following persons as witnesses for the hearing scheduled herein for the week of March 24, 1998: 1. Bobby Lester, Superintendent of Schools 2. Billy Bowles, Asst. Supt. for Desegregation 3. Eddie Collins, Asst. Supt. for Pupil Personnel 4. Bobby Altom, Asst. Supt. for Instruction 5. Gary Miller, Asst. Supt for Personnel 6. Charles Green, Director of Secondary Education 7. Sarah Womble, Director of Elementary Education 8. Tommie sue Anthony, Coordinator of Talented and Gifted 9. Brenda Bowles, Coordinator of Multicultural Education 10. Martha Asti, Director of Special Education 11. Ruth Hertz, Director of Desegregation 12. Jerry Welch, Coordinator of Student Hearings 13. Doug Ask, Director of Staff Development 14. Mildred Tatum, Member of Board of Education 15. Gwendolyn Williams, Member of Board of Education 16. Georgia Norris, Pupil Personnel Specialist 17. Ann Clem, Pupil Personnel Specialist 18. Bill Barnes, Principal - Mills High School 19. Michael Nellums, Asst. Principal - Mills High School 20. Charles Green, Principal - Jacksonville Middle School 21. _____ Wilson, Asst. Principal - Jacksonville Middle 22. Florine Boone, Asst. Pricnipal Robinson Jr. High 23. Joy Plant, Asst. Principal - Robinson High School 24. Phil Clark, Asst. Principal - Jacksonville 25. Georgia Norris, Pupil Personnel Specialist 26. Dinah Withers, parent 27. Derrick Withers, student 28. Christopher Withers 2 9. Mr. ______ Withers 30. Earnestine Morgan, parent . 31. Antwine Wilson, student 32. Quentin Bailey, parent 33. Emory Moore, parent 34. Emmanuel Moore, student 35. Keith Straughan, Principal - Robinson Jr. 36. Linda Nuggent 37. Sue Martin, Principal, Adkins Elementary 38. Brenda Allen, Principal - Oak Grove High School 39. Coach Steve Adair - Oak Grove High School 40. Linda Clark, parent 41. Ashley Tate, parent 42. James Wiley, parent 43. Jamaal Wiley, parent 44. Marcia Warren 45. Bernice Hooks 540. Marcia Warren 46 . Sharon Patten, parent 47. Coach Wayne Davenport, Robinson High School 48. Peggy Flowers, parent 49. Lakia Watkins, student 50. Lawrence Stewart, parent 51. Lawrence Stewart, Jr., student 52. Janie Lawson, parent 53. Robin Wakefield, parent 54. Velma Moore, parent 55. Lisa Little, parent 56. Mary Anderson, parent -57. James Guy, parent 58. Kim Guy, parent 59. Stephanie Nichols, student 60. Melanie Nichols, student 61. Barbara Trotter, parent 62. Ashley Bush, student 63. Sue Clark, Prinicipal - Sylvan Hills Junior High 64. Charles Ferriter, Asst. Principal - Sylvan Hills High 65. Verna Finney, parent 66. Chris Bolden, parent 67. Mansell Twillle, Asst. Principal - Sylvan Hills Junior 68. Teresa Young, parent 69. Herman Lee, parent 70. Cathy Lee, parent 71. Anita Straw, parent 72. Michael Woods, parent 73. Bertha Farmer, parent 74. Joyce Lowrey, parent 75. Jackie Robinson, parent 76. Gary Parson, Principal - Jacksonville High School 77. Doug Ask, Coordinator of Staff Development 78. Jo Wilcox, Coordinator of Extracurricular Activities 79. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 80. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 81. Horace Smith, Office of Desegreation Monitoring 82. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 83. Melissa Gauldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring . 84. Norman W. Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 85. Dr. Steve Ross, Joshua expert witness 86. Michael Anderson, Director of Safety and Security 87. Michael Dobson 88. Richard Rowland 89. Charity Smith, ADE 90. Frank Anthony, ADE Joshua also reserves the right to call any witnesses listed on the list of the defendant, Pulaski county Special School District. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little R ck, -~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the fore~~ing was been hand delivered to all counsel of record on this \u0026ffe day of March, 1998. IN THE .UN!TED STATES DISTRICT COUrtT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS.ll.S \\JESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. LR-C-82-865 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO . l, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS . LORE~ JOSHUA, ET AL. !NTERVENORS :\\ . .:..THERINE KNIGHT , ET AL. ::::Jfl'ERVEHORS JOSHUA'S SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT LIST POR MARCH 2-1..t 19S8 HEARING The Joshua I ntervenors s~brnits the following supplenental documen~s as e xh ibits for the hearing scheduled herein for the week of Earch 24 , 1998 : 1. Curriculum Vitae of Dr . Stave Ross 2. Excerpt s oi Dep::,si-c2.on test ir::.:::-11y of ;::: a ,.,,- i ,j .::..r::,cr 3 . Excerpts of Deposition te.s-:: L-:10ny of Hs~be~i:. Walbe1g 4. ?CSSD a~s~ers to Jos ~~a Inte~rogator~ss 5. PCSSD B~dgets for 199~ to present 6 . PCU 0072 0 7. PCU 1 8. PCU 14-16 9 . ?CU :36 -54 10. PCSSD School Profiles for 1994-95 school year 11. PCTJ ~04 12 . PCG 7 2 1 - 72 2 13. PCSSD TAG Facilitators from 1992 to present 14. PCSSD Advanced Classes and AP Enrollment for 1992 to present 15. ?CSSD Discipline reports dated 1992 to present 16 . PCSSD Special Education Monitoring Reports ~rom 1996 to present Joshua f~r~ter reserves the rights to adopt any exhibit submitted by the defenda~ts, Pulaski County Special School District. ?espectfully sub~i~tad, CERrIFICATE OF SE_R\\TICE I do hereby s~ate that a cop7 cf the foregc!~g was been delievered via ~acs ~~ il~ tc all c cc~sel cf reccrd c~ ~~is Stj of March, 19 98 . day ----- - ----- ------------ SC 137-1 -:11:3':' l,iHLk EF- LHld FI PM John W Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadwqy Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 Fax: (501) 374-4187 Ffu--X TRA\"/\\lSMISSION COVER SHEET .Date: To: . . -.. Fax: 371- 0 !0V Re: Sender: YOU SHOULD F.ECEIVE ]._ PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLF-ASE C4LL (501) 374-3758. The informAtion conta..ined in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and. co:.fidential informa.t.ion intended on:y for the u.se cf th: individual or entity urned above. If 6e re.s.der cf this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to delive: it to the l.ntended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution o:- copy.ng of this cowmunicatlon is strictly prohibited. If you have received this commtL\":ication in error, please immediate noti~; us by t.::lephMe, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Pest.al Sen,ice. Thank you. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82 - 866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST RECE,IED MAR q 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD submits the following as its exhibit and witness list: , EXHIBIT LIST 1. 1989 Releases (attached to Settlement Agreement) 2. ODM Racial Balance Reports 3 . Charts from PCSSD Petition for Release From Federal Court Supervision. 4. Staff Development Data 5. Charts pertaining to cheerleading, drill team, student government, Beta Club, and National Honor Society. 6. Affirmative Action Reports 7. Discipline Reports 8. Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline i . 9. Secondary Education Report 10. Counselor's Reports 11. Special Education Reports 12. Gifted and Talented Reports 13. Athletic Reports 14. Non-Athletic Reports 15. Biracial Committee Minutes 16. PCSSD Desegregation Plan 17. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan 18. PCU 1039 (Minority AP student recruitment). 19. PCU 1040 (Social Studies Advanced Placement Recommendation Notice). 20. PCU 1041 (Social Studies Advanced Placement Recommendation Followup Student Conference form). 21. The Special Master's Interim Findings and Recommendations concerning PCSSD geography and demographics , dated August 19, 1988, as previously transmitted to the Court on January 20, 1994. WITNESS LIST 1. Bobby Lester, Superintendent, PCSSD; 2. Bill Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, PCSSD; 3 . Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services, PCSSD; 2 4. Dr. Bobby Altom, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction; 5. Gary Miller, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel; 6. Don Stewart, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs; 7. Ed Hogan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services; 8. Charles Green, Director of Secondary Education; 9. Tommie Sue Anthony, Director of Gifted and Talented Programs; 10. Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Education; 11. Brenda Bowles, Coordinator of Multi-Cultural Education. WITNESSES VIA PREVIOUS TESTIMONY 12. 1988 Testimony of Ed Hogan, docket No. 1059-A, dated June 16, 1988, page Nos. 6 through 213; and docket No. 1060 -A, dated June 17, 1988, page Nos. 6 through 162. 13. Douglas A. Ask, Docket No. 2540, testimony beginning at page 95. 14 . Bill Bowles, by recent deposition not yet transcribed. 15. Dr. Bobby Altom, by recent deposition not yet transcribed (including previous testimony given in open court in this case, the docket reference for which we have not yet located) . 3 16. Eddie Collins, by recent deposition not yet transcribed, 17. Charles Green, by recent deposition not yet transcribed. 18. Tommie Sue Anthony, by recent deposition not yet transcribed. 19. Brenda Bowles, by recent deposition not yet transcribed. 20. Dr. Herbert Walberg, Docket No. 2662A (hearing held May 13-15, 1996), transcript filed with the Clerk as Docket No. 2692) 21. Dr. David Armor, Docket No. 2662B (hearing held May 13-15, 1996), transcript filed with the Clerk as Docket Nos. 2693-94). PCSSD reserves the right to use any exhibit or witness referred to or used by the Joshua Intervenors. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 4 , - . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March __ f __ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by hand delivery to Mr. Walker and by U.S. Mail on the remainder of the service list: Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 5 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82 - 866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIV~i MAR 1 8 1998 OFFICE OF . DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENOR$' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE PCSSD (FEBRUARY 1998) The PCSSD for its supplemental responses to the Joshua Intervenors' Interrogatories and requests for production to the PCSSD states the following: INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If any of the persons identified in the answer to interrogatory No . 1 are expert witnesses, please state: (a) (b) (c) all opinions to be expressed by each expert; the basis and the reason for each opinion; all data or other information considered by the witness in forming such opinion. Please include in responding to this interrogatory each (i) employee of the PCSSD to give testimony as an expert, and (ii) any expert to \"te.stify\" by reliance on previous testimony in 1 this case (although intervenors do not concede the appropriateness of reliance on such testimony where there was no opportunity for normal discovery). SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: As previously stated in response to Interrogatory No. 3, it is possible that Dr. Altom may be called to testify concerning achievement disparity. His opinion, the bases for them, and some of the information considered by him is set forth in his deposition. Some of the reference/research materials used by Dr. Altom in formulating his opinion are as follows: Title Lies My Teacher Told Me The Promised Land American Slavery Warriors Don't Cry Crusaders in the Courts Civil Rights and Civil Wrongs The Content of Our Character The Closing Door Stepping Over the Color Line Beyond the Classroom Forced Justice America in Black and White The End of Racism Outcome Equity in Education Dismantling Desegregation Good Intentions are Not Enough Inside American Education Race 2 Author James Loewen Nicholas Leman Peter Kolchin Melba Beal Jack Greenberg Harry Ashmore Shelby Steele Gary Orield \u0026 Carol Ashkimaze Amy Wells, Robert Crain Laurence Steinberg David Armor Stephan \u0026 Abigail Thernstrom Dinesh D'Souza Robert Berne, Lawrence Picus Gary Orfield, Susan Eaton Katherine Kersten Thomas Sowell Studs Terkel I i I  I I I Statistics. Research Measurement Resource(s) Authors Gerald W. Bracey R. L. Linn, N.E. Gronlund Gilbert Sax WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By '-,?1~ M. ,s-\u0026muel;Jone ~(76060) ~ for PCSSD CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March --/ 7- -, 1998, a copy of the foregoing was serv ed by hand delivery to Mr. Walker and by U. S. Mail on the remainder of the service list: Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr . Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg . , Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 , III 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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Mi\\R l 8 iS~B Q(-f\\CEOF DESEGREGATIOK MOKllORlNG DEFENDANTS J;NTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby gives notice ~f the filing of the Affidavit of Dr. Leslie v. Carnine related to LRSD's compliance with the notice requirements of the District Court's Order entered January 30, 1998. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people ~X depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this _rL_ day of 414fd...lk,,, , 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 w. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 nc. Fendley, Jr; 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 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AFFIDAVIT DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS I, Dr. Leslie V. Carnine, being first sworn, state under oath as follows: 1. I am the Superintendent of the Little Rock School - District. 2. I have reviewed the district court's order of January 30, 1998 which directs the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to publish notice to the class of Joshua-Intervenors (\"Joshua\") of the pending motion by the LRSD and Joshua for approval of the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998. 3. LRSD has complied with the notice publication requirements of the district court's order of January 30, 1998. 4. Copies of the notice were made and distributed to all LRSD teachers on February 13, 1998. 5. The notice was posted in all LRSD schools beginning on February 11, 1998. 6. The notice was broadcast on LRSD' s cable channel on February 13, 18 and 24 and on March 2 and 9, 1998. 7. Attached as Exhibit A to my affidavit is a true and correct copy of proof of publication of the notice in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on February 8, 21 and 28 and on March 7, 1998. Further affiant sayeth not. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ) ss. ) Dr. LslV. Carnine Superintendent Little Rock School District DATE: ___.3_ -_t,_-~'1~r:....-____ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this day of March, 1998. My Comi~s1on Expires: .. 8-1-j{Jo'f 2 Arkana Democrat ~Q5azettc STATEj)'IENT OF LEGAL ADVERTISING Date :=to a..,,.._J__ ~ , ' 9 9 g Remit To; In Account With: Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. P.O. Box 2221 Little Rock, Ark. 72203 To Insure Proper Credit Refer To No ________________ _ Please remit yellow copy with payment .. Invoice No._ 5 '--f ~ 9 AD COPY 3~ Lines at _L_lLl ( ') \u0026 . ----- on the following dates: ____________ _ ~-J, Total Charge - Please Remit do solemnly swear that I am the legal billing clerk of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a daily newspaper printed and published in said County, State ef Arkansas; that I was so related to this publicatioi:i at and during the publication qf the annexed legal advertisement in the matter of_ ___ _ ____________________ L/L-( -~d::-i ( Q ( Q pending in the _______ Court, in said County, and at the dates of the several publications of said advertisement stated above, and that during said periods and at said dates, said newspaper was printed and had a bona fide circulation in said County; that said newspaper had been regularly printed and published in said County, and had a bona fide circulation therein for the period of one month brf.ore the date of the first publication of s~id adv~rtisement; and that said ~d.ver.; iscmeut was ~uolished in ti1c regular daily issues of said newspaper at s~c1icu above. Subscrib~d and sworn to before me this) day oft 'rr\\.c~ ,1~2 -~__L._--~~- OFFICIAL SEAl VICKI A. MCBRIDE NOTARY PUBLIC. AR.rANSAs PULASKI COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 04-15-2006 Notary Puhl ic    C0 en -en  : . WllElHTEOSTATES .  .  DISTRICT COURT . ; - ....  E.ASTcRN OISTRICT  \u003e OF AOONSAS ..  .. WESTERN DIVISlON Um:E  ROCX\" SCHOOl DISTRICT. PI..AINTIFF ~- (  Ul~-866 PUtASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SC/iOOl DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OE FENOliNTS MRS. tORENE JOSHUA; ET AL INTERVENORS KAJliERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS .   - NOTICE . TOJ\u003etE JOSHUA ClASS;  All 'PAST. PRESEHT ANO FUTURE .81.ACK OR AfRICAH.AMERICAN PUPILS WHO RESIDE IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS. ANO WHQ. ATTEND, HAVE ATTENOEO, Will: ATTENO. OR WHO ARE EUGleLE., WERE EUGl8lE OR Will BE ELK.IBLE TO ATTEND THE PU8UC SCHOOLS OF ONE OF THE THREE PUtASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (UTllE ROCK. NORlH UT nE POCK OR PUI.ASKJ COUNTY!. THEIR PARENTS ANO/OR NEXT FRIENDS WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED. OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED EOUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. OR WHO Cl.AIM. HAVE CLAlMEO OR MAY. CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OR' WILL BE THE VICTIMS Of RACE DISGAIMINA TlON IN EOUCA TlON SY. ONE OR MORE OF THE THREE PUl:ASl\u003cl COUNTY SCHOOL OISTRICJS Al:llOR BY THE STA TE Of AR~ arises cu defforts ,. nrq.. ii. 1956 to desegregate Ille~ . Rodi.: Nof1h Utllt Rodi and Naski Coanrr sd'oal dis1rids. In 1989 a SIi ilem1I - radled and apprOl'ld \"' wlich Ille Ult Rodi Sdl00I Oislrid (1.RSO'.) ~ 10 inplemenl lhe !UeIiSdiO\u0026 a~id Plan aPndla nI.l le Olnn- ~ 26. 1 . UISD submiUld ri = Yisect. . apprc r,al aonld LRESdOu'csa Rliotn- Ptaif dated ember 18. 1997. Fcl-lowi, g mnission. LASO and canel fer Jilt Josl'ua ~ (lwerlalt 'Jasllla1 enaaQld \"' el1enSNe Mgl)! lnonul an edoi1 10 dMIOp a rMed 1)1311 ).nic:11 ball, p3l1ies a:iuld SIJIIP0II. Those 118g0lialians resulted ii LRSO's Al!'lised Oesegregaticn and Educalion Plan-dated Jaooa,y 16. 1998 (\"~ 16.A!Med Ptan1,  Clo Januaiy 21, 1997, LASO and Jona filed a jcint request with lhe United  Slates Oisllid Court fer flt Easteni OisliCI ol Arkansas. Ille Hantfabll -Susan Wtib!t Wr91, lar ap, proval ti Ille J3lllll'f 16 ReviMd Plan. Tllc Jrua,y 16 Re'tised Plan baicaly pro:,ideS folows:  -~ ~: Prior Ageements and Or dets:  The:~ 16 Revised Plan wl rtpiace !ht amn1 LASO dese\u003c7egalian !)Ian., !ht lnrimtt ~ Piao-and al exiAng ~ and OlUrt\"oraets wilt1 some exceplians. It wil ~ no did on lhe Sepcern1Jer 21. 1989 . .setllemelt ~ -lhe Ma9- net Sdloal S1i1xmon daled Fellru3ly 2?,)987; lhe (Blrict COlll'I onlef dated ~ 3. {986, pet13r'ling 10 lhe Mq,et, Rt'liew Conrnittee; and. lhe IA-it\u003e-M ~ daled AuC)ust 2E.' 1986. ' Section 2: Otiigalions. LASO's basic ~ obligallons' tlfflain ~ ,. __ lllder lbr;Jaooa,y 16 AMed Plan as lllder Ille amnl ~ plal. The ollliJa1lals ate dea,ty and simply staled and ctNfif Mt'/ asped ol SCll00I ~ - The J3ll,aiy 16 Rl'fised l?tan .irldudes an r,en srong9f c:ommitmtfil 10 an equiCablt disrilution ol lacii11y ),y race. educalion and ezperiencir: .. .')lfp,gh some specifics n inculect; lhe' Jaroaty 16 Revised Plan conltf1'. 911h !hal ~ Ille lr1/1Si1ion ptriocl ~ dis1rid wil idenlily a/ld/Ol de- , Yei011' prog,wns. policies and ~  dw9I relalld IO HCII ollliga1ion. MU pen .setec1ed by lhe dis1ricl and a,\u003eptCIYld _by Joshua w,I assist Ille disn:I ~: ___ . '~ ~ (i/itiiiiiiic~,:mal \"' ltis process. Sealon 3; S1udenC AssicJwnenlS, Under 111t Jaooar, 16 llMld Plan. .,..~movtslromracillt.anca IO quality ecilc:alion. CMnJ 1111 ltrm ol lhe plan. ...,.,..., and ,... lm'igaMy libded lfell t1sWcllI0I cl1 0 alClen:d-a.n c,a. .-,,,.. hoed sd'oals with II many ol llmt neicfblrhoad sd'oals beina ..,.. !llled II p!1dical. Higll scnoal alllllaain zones may be rlli'awn 111 adWtt racial balanca wid'iil pu Of ni- 1111 lllerly P1rt11QJt p0l1IS flall Ill perter1agl ol AiicAmerican ... dents lcr hql sd'oals II I whale and. 10 lhe U1llnl praa,allle. fflli1llin a consislenl leeder paaem. V~ nlradislncl nnsl.s w,I a:intirlll 10 be alowtd I.Im NIis siNar IO !ht 116 111151Udeltassqvnertplan. The sa,dent wqrner'II plan also provides IOr Ille affifflion ol al U1SO ' ~ hql sd'oals 10 middle sdl00ls Jar grades six. - and eigtt a. cause ol capacily lrnllalionl  LRSO's Higll Sdloais. lhe aJnYtlSDI ID rridlll sa100ls may ~ lht aealion ol lllO IW11II grade scnools. Fc,ally. Ille Jaruary 16 AIYist Plan alls for Ille ainslruaion ol at least IIIO new aiea elementary sd1cois. one ii wes1 Lilllt Rod\u003c and one  Ille  ol !ht lormet Stepnens scllaal. When lhe new Stephens Elementa,y opens. one  Ol men Ille lncenM Sdloals wil be dosed. Seoon : lnlenislrid Sdloals. i lnferdaic:I sd'oals wil Cllf1lirue Ill : ~111ht'(dd:lhtlnlenis-l ~Adlievement The Jnlaly 16 Rl'lised Plan is loundld on a. belief lhal llf0'li:ing .,. err S1Udelt a quu1y edUCalion is ll1t j 111051 piomisr,g means ID lhe lq-tlrm deseqregalion ol LASO. It 0Ullines UISO's 1lasic sraiegy 1or 11\\uing a  S1Udents reaM a quality eclJcatiaa.  . indules an ur1y clildl00d dJCllion ' prt)113111.11Med~ ' ans am:wn lffl!)llasimg lhe prima-ry gr1deS. a rl'lised malhtmalics a,. ri:wn,anabmaMeciJCllianpn,grarn and pnntJI and CXlffll1Uily nvclYefflenl prt)l13l1I. MtfM ~ piece ol lht SIUdtnl achilMmel1  lion is a \u003cXllege scnolal!lip progra,n lar al studenlS who attend raa4y idenli6- ablt elemenWy sd1cois. Seoon 6: LRSD Compiance Pro- ~ wil ~ a ~ siYe ~ ~ ID ensure l subslanlialy ccmplies widl i1s desagr.gation ollligalicns and i1s Olher legal andet'ic:alobliQalions. . Sedion 7: Plan Mocillca1ion Pro-  Q!SS. The .Jaruaty 16 Re'lised Plan ndudes a pt0CeSS fer plan mocific3lion designed IO !date CXl0!)ffl1ion and disaxnge itigillion. LASO wil S1irni1 proposed plan mocilicalionl ID lhe ofl. \" panes wno wl hM an eSlabislled time lr3lne lor oomments and su,pslions. LASO wil !hen submil i1s ,_ ' mended plan modi6calion lar aut ap, prova. Pat1in would gane,aly be pnlholld lrom   issues belare .. dis1ricl CIJUtl ~ M1g .. c:ommenl period. ~~~~ r,g ~~~~ow:- . ganllng _,,...,_ yeaIrIs-. I  The plan establishes a process lar adffl! ing QlfflPlianca issues again desqled 10 ldlart C00!)ttalion and m- Cllln9' itigalion. Al ~ issues wil l'nl be subniatd Ill LASO. I no ageornen1 is readied. !he issue wil : be subnit1ed 10 OOM lar lacililalion. Only i OOM's ettons ii lacililating an aq,eemn Iii would lht issut be subnilted Ill lhe dislriclaut larresolueion. Seoon 9: T em1. The tenn ol Ille Rl'lised Oesegr lion and Educalion Plan wil be !hrN sctoa1 years begiming !he 1998-99 sd'oal yea, and enor-,q on Ille lasl day ol classes ol Ille ~1 sdl00I yeat. Fedefal court supervision wil end ii !NI time, and Ille dislricl wil rn#II IO local conllOI. Sedion 10: Transition. Thi 1997-98 SChool yea, and 1he 1n1 - ol lhe 1998-99 SChool ye wil be a rnitioA period in ptlpllllion ~ ~llalioll ol Ille Jaooa,y Section 11: ~ Stalus. I LASO subslanlialy metlS its obligalior, s l6idef lhe Jnwy 16 Rl'fised Plan. U1SO wil be inwy at lhe condusicll ol its llml and released from aut SllllMlion. The al\u003eowe is nol intended 10 be I U, dllailed-... of !ht RIIIIIY 16 flMtd Plan. The Jniary 16 RMld Pal. along with lhe amnt U1SO 0.. ~ Plan and lnletdislrict 0.. SIIJegation Plan. will be made MialJlt IO Josbla dass members cuinQ ~ business hotn ii LASO's aorrwilnM olbs al 810 W. Mar1lharn, UlltRodl.Arkwas. The purpose ol llis noCica is 10 advise Jos/111 dass membets ol lhe J3lllll'f 16 Revised \"'-1 and 10 rjve '- an appotmiy Ill show cause Ol III pivwidt - objeclions which ~ ,ol,y Ill nary 16 Rftised Plan shoud nol be ilj)plOYtd by lhe Dislrict Cotrt. Joslm Cius membets hM ,  lll'!.l t,e !~li',y of Marth, 1998 ID lit - Cl0rllMU Ol objeaions wifl lk. James McConnidl. U.S. Oislrid CCIII Oedt. U.S. Ccu1nouse, 600 W. ~ I.JIit Rock. Mansas 72201. Al Joslm class membets will be ll0lrd by lhe Dislrict Court's decision IJlllllMl!IOlrejec:!irq lhe~ 16 Al'listd  Plan. Absenl good cause --. there will be no heamg on whether flt J3lllll'f 16 Revised Plan shoud bl approved. ~. hs Hoict l)ffMdes Jona class nwnbtrs their Olly opporu,ity Ill olljed Ill ~oval \u003cJI lht Jnwy 16 Revised UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARl\u003cANSAS. WESTERN DIVISION \u0026166578 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * FILED U.S . DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR t 7 1998 DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * MAR 1 8 1998 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors. * ORDER By prior Order, 1 this Court set March 13, 1998 as the deadline for receiving objections regarding the January 16 Revised Plan. Attached hereto as Exhi "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1694","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report and executive summary; District Court, order; District Court, five notices of deposition; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, joint motion to postpone oral argument; District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1998-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","Court records","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report and executive summary; District Court, order; District Court, five notices of deposition; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, joint motion to postpone oral argument; District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1694"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["51 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  .... ..... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION CEV FEB 3 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING The Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of its February, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report and Executive Summary. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMO Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by first class mail on this 2nd day of February, 1998, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 Boatmen's Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS (. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB O 2 1998 JA~i~ w ~CORMACI( QlER By.~ \\d\\J.../\\~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER FEB o/ 199S OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MmllTORlNG The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") has filed a supplement to past and ~W'1 pending claims against the state defendants. I Although this document has been filed, this Court has not docketed this document as and will not treat this document as a pending motion. Therefore, the other parties involved in this matter need not respond. If the PCSSD wishes to put these issues regarding the state defendants before the Court, the PCSSD may file a formal motion, accompanied by a proper brief in support pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, which sets forth the precise issues the PCSSD would like for this Court to consider. . ,.).  SO ORDERED THIS ,;2-day of February 1998. ~Jr\u0026 UNITEDSTATES DISTRICJUDGE 1 Docket No. 3111. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPU~/~H RULE 58 A~R 79(a) FRCP 0N 6./3 _ ., BY OEP CLERK JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY L!TILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. FEB 11 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING M. Samual Jones III. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 February 9, 1998 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et al., United States District Court No. LR-C-82-866 - Dear Sam: Please let this letter serve as confirmation to our conversation that we had last week. John wants to take the depositions of the following persons on Thursday, February 12, 1998, commencing at 10:00 a .m.: a) Bobby Lester, b) Eddie Collins, c) Billy Bowles, d) Bobby Alton, and f) Gary Miller. I have prepared notices for the following persons with times therein mentioned. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to give me a call. /apj Enclosures cc: John W. Walker Sincerely, Austin Porter Jr. Attorney at Law IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: Bobby Lester Superintendent NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Pulaski County Special School District No. I 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS RECElVED FEB 1 i 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR!!~ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John W. Walker, P. A, will take the deposition of Bobby Lester, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @ 10:00 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 By C.J::J {J R. Austin Porter Jr., #8145 CERTIFICATE OF SER VICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this 9tJ+- day of February, 1998 on the following persons: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Eddie Collins Director of Pupil Personnel Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 OrFiCE C. DESE6REG.ATIOM MONffOn.lNB PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John W. Walker, P. A, will take the deposition of Eddie Collins, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @ 11:30 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 By: /2b-()-Jtj )?. _ Austin Porter Jr., #8'6145 CERTIFICATE OF SER VICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this ft-4-day of February, 1998 on the following persons: 1vfr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Austin Porter Jr., No. 86145 . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. iv!RS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGITT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSffiON TO: Billy Bowles Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 RECEPftED FEB 1 1 i99S OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John W. Walker, P. A., will take the deposition of Billy Bowles, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @ 1:45 p.m. at the law offices of .JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. , 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. .. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 By: ()JS ws ~ Austin Porte0r.,#86145 CERTIFICATE OF SER VICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this 7~ay of February, 1998 on the following persons: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Austin P~rter Jr., No. 86145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. lVfRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Bobby Alton Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 925 East Dixon Road - Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 FEB 1 1 1998 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John W Walker, P. A., will take the deposition of Bobby Alton, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @ 3:00 p.m. at the law offices of .JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. , 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 I ~/ - 1 By: --l ,c:r/ . Austin Porter Jr.,# 6145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do her~by certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this 7fay of February, 1998 on the following persons: Ivfr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1-fr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Austin Porter Jr., ~86145 ' ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. l\\1.1.RS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Gary Miller Pulaski County Special School District No. I 925 East Dixon Road - Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MO~IITORJUG PLAINTIFF DEFENDA.t'\\J\"'TS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John \\V. Walker. P. A., will take the deposition of Gary Miller, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @, 3:30 p.m. at the law offices of .IOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. Respectfully ~ubmitted, John W. Walker, PA. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 By: --\\;:a,L--==---d----\"--+---Austin Porter Jr., # 6145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this -2.._~y of February, 1998 on the following persons: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Austin Porter Jr., N'o. 86145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * QRDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS FEB 1 3 1998 RECEIVED FEB 1 7 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG Before the Court is a joint motion filed by ServiceMaster Management Services, Inc. - rserviceMaster\") and the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). ServiceMaster and the LRSD request that this Court dismiss without prejudice ServiceMaster as an intervening party in this proceeding. Both parties agree that ServiceMaster should now be dismissed from this proceeding because there are currently before the Court no disputes or issues regarding the arrangements between ServiceMaster and the LRSD. However, the LRSD has agreed that it shall notify general counsel's office of ServiceMaster as soon as practicable should any pleadings be filed with the Court, whether filed by the LRSD or other parties involved in this litigation, that relate to the LRSD's arrangements with ServiceMaster and that if such circumstances should arise, the LRSD will not object to a motion for leave to intervene filed by ServiceMaster. For good cause shown, this Court grants the parties' motion. ServiceMaster is hereby dismissed without prejudice as an intervening party in this case, pursuant to the conditions agreed upon by the LRSD and SeryiceMaster. SO ORDERED THIS /0--f\\.._ day of February 1998. OJ-. 7U ~~* uNITEDST ATES n1sTRIC JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN GC,Mf\u003eUANCE W!::'LE 53 ANOJOR 79(a) FRCP -JN ,~//~  ev_V,....,\\ _ _ 2 discriJtlinat i on by PCSSD against African-American students, to provide that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of PCSSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending PCSSD schools. 2.1.1. PCSSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with PCSSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Plan and to assist PCSSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. The minimum term of the expert shall be for a period of time of at least two (2) years. 2. 2. PCSSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate (narrow the gap) the academic achievement of African-American students. 2. 2 .1. PCSSD shall continue to search for and implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of Afri can American students. The PCSSD will increase scrutiny at the system level of the implementation at the school level of the designated programs, policies and procedures. Any newly implemented programs shall have clearly stated goals that can 2 be measured in terms of student achievement. The student achievement measures shall have standardized scoring procedures and be sensitive to instructional effect, -including graduation rates and participation in upper level courses, by instructional and/or curricular change. 2.2.2. PCSSD will continue to brought about work with representatives of the University of Memphis to assess and possibly to increase the use of the \"Success for All\" program and other effective programs in the PCSSD. The program is now employed in t he Bates School. 2.2 . 3. PCSSD shall assess academic programs i mplemented herein after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the programs in improving African-American student achievement. The assessment shall utilize either control groups, or predictive measures that allow comparison to actual versus predicted effect. PCSSD shall take appropriate action i n the form of program modification or program substitution. 2. 3. PCSSD shall implement programs, policies and/or pr ocedures designed to provide that PCSSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner . 2. 3 .1. PCSSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of AfricanAmerican teachers which have allowed PCSSD to maintain a 3 2.6.3. Regarding the issue of an ombudsman for the PCSSD, ODM will assist the parties by undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the ombudsman concept. At the conclusion of the assessment period ODM will, in consul tat ion with the parties and before the start of the 1998-99 school year, recommend a person to fill the position of ombudsman. As a result of ODM's assessment, ODM will be able to: a. Articulate the needs which may be met by an ombudsman; b. Define the role of the ombudsman; c. Identify the relationship the with key administrators, such ombudsman as the would have Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel, the Superintendent, and the Board; d. Describe the decision-making processes in discipline matters; e. Identify the time commitments required of an ombudsman; f. Develop a comprehensive job description for an ombudsman; g. Recommend where the ombudsman will be placed; h. Recommend how the ombudsman will be paid. 2.6.4. PCSSD shall continue to work with students and their parents to assist those students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 7 2.6.5. PCSSD shall create and maintain for each student a11 student disciplinary records . that note the reasons for punishment, the teacher and/or other staff members involved, and the school, race and sex of the student disciplined. Collection and assessment of this information allows the school principal, parents and other administrative staff, PACT and PASS, to analyze the reasons for the disciplinary action by race and sex, and to determine if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems that require attention. The Assistant Superintendents for Pupil Personnel and Desegregation shall analyze data, including a sample of files concerning particular instances of discipline, to determine whether District policies have been followed, and whether there are a disproportionate number of African- American students being disciplined by category (meaning male and female students). They will make written recommendations for the elimination of any disparities. 2.6.6. PCSSD shall conduct a comprehensive study of the disciplining of African-American students, particularly male students, at the secondary level. The participants (a minimum of twelve ( 12) , one-half designated by the Joshua Intervenors and one-half by PCSSD and the PACT and PASS, shall consider the causes for high rates of discipline for African-American - students and possible remedies. The panel shall, among other 8 2 .. 8. PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next two years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of PCSSD and the education of PCSSD students. 2.9. The PCSSD shall not intentionally implement any programs, policies and/or procedures designed to negatively effect the allocation of financial, technological and educational resources in the PCSSD. The resources referred to herein do not include salaries and similar benefits. Should Joshua bring to the attention of the PCSSD matters which constitute material misallocation of resources, the PCSSD shall address in writing those allegations within thirty (30) days. 2.10. PCSSD shall not implement any programs, policies and/or procedures designed to diminish the equitable maintenance and repair of PCSSD facilities. 2 .11. PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and/or _procedures designed to eliminate racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. 2.11.1. Guidance counselors shall work with students in an effort to provide for more equity in academic honors, awards and scholarships. The guidance counselors shall be provided in-service training by the multicultural education 10 - coordinator with the view toward providing those persons with more knowledge and information regarding historically black colleges, scholarship availability, student loans and college preparatory information which may be helpful in assisting students in considering their educational options. Special emphasis shall be placed upon identifying ways by which to assist counselors in their encouragement of students for qualifying and meeting the requirements of standardized tests such as the preliminary SAT and ACT. 2.12. PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to provide students in each PCSSD school a learning environment free from discrimination. 2.12.1. PCSSD shall implement an ongoing training program through the United States Department of Justice, the Arkansas Department of Education and/or the National Conference of Christians and Jews in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity~ 2 . 12.2. PCSSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the causes of racial disparities in participation in instructional programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. This responsibility shall be undertaken by coordination between the multicultural education coordinator and the other Instructional Division coordinators/directors . 11 PCSSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to provide that PCSSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Plan . 2.13.1 The PCSSD Superintendent shall be responsible for overseeing PCSSD's compliance with this Plan. SECTION 3 : STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS 3.1. Outside Students. PCSSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by PCSSD; and, 3.2 Transportation. PCSSD shall not provide transportation in the instances of (I) employee's child transfers and (ii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. SECTION 4 : SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION/CLOSING PCSSD shall have as its highest priority the construction of a school which replaces the Bates school. The initial site to be evaluated is in the proximity of 145th Street and 65/167. There shall be no new school construction or substantial expansion of existing schools which will precede this event. Moreover, the District shall not close schools which are located 12 - in pre~ominantly African-American areas absent reasons of compelling necessity (which does not include the opposition of white patrons to attending such schools). SECTION 5: RACIAL BALANCE This Plan recognizes that the desegregation of PCSSD does not require a particular racial balance at every PCSSD school or as obligating PCSSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every PCSSD school. However, the goal of the PCSSD is to assign students, so that no school should have a racial minority enrollment which is below twenty percent (20%) of the total school enrollment except that this minimum shall not apply to Lawson and Bayo Meta. SECTION 6: HOUSING PCSSD and Joshua commit to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent recurrence of, segregated housing patters. SECTION 6: INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS PCSSD and LRSD shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: 13 6.~. PCSSD Interdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school which may be constructed in the Chenal Valley area as Interdistrict Schools; except that Baker is not subject to the Interdistrict School racial balance goals. 6.2 LRSD Interdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as Interdistrict Schools; 6.3 Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the - majority race at the Interdistrict School; 6.4 Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD; 6.5 Recruitment. PCSSD and LRSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfer students and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfer students to interdistrict Schools; 6.6 Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition; and, 14 6.7. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the PCSSD for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. SECTION 7: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. 7.1. Early Childhood Education. PCSSD shall implement an early childhood education program which includes and shall continue to include a HIPPY program in all of the elementary schools in the southeast sector of the PCSSD. PCSSD also contemplates retention of the four year-old program in the schools where they are presently being operated. PCSSD also supports the HEADSTART program which ahs been operated through the local Community Action Program. In the event that the agency does not continue HEADSTART, PCSSD commits to consider seeking funding and support to operate the program itself. 7.2. Reading/Language Arts. 7.2.1. Primary Grades. PCSSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students ~ill be reading independently and. show understanding of words on a page; 15 b . Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c. Promote thematic instruction in the interdistrict schools and in those other schools where themes now exist; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f. Establish, where feasible, uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to schools without such experiences; 16 j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day; and, 1. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 7.2.2. Intermediate Grades. PCSSD intends to implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment; b. Promote thematic instruction; c. Establish, where feasible, uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction; d. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; 17 ---- - - f. Provide parents/guardians with comprehensive information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; g. Provide ongoing annual staff development for all teachers, train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom; and h. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 7.2.3. Secondary Schools. PCSSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades seven through twelve: a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subjects areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners; b. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula; c. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking; d. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies; 18 - ----- - e. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. . 7.3. Mathematics. PCSSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction; 7. 3 .1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation; 7.3.2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum; "}],"pages":{"current_page":20,"next_page":21,"prev_page":19,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":228,"total_count":544,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":313},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":35},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":14},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":3},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":3},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":2},{"value":"Cobb Court Reporting","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Sixth Division","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":439},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":396},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":378},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":354},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":329},{"value":"School integration","hits":317},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":295},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":268},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":249},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":223},{"value":"Court records","hits":206}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1},{"value":"Lester, Bobby","hits":1},{"value":"Porter, Austin, Jr.","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":544},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":537},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":535},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":472},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Phillips County, 34.42829, -90.84802","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Jacksonville, 34.8662, -92.11015","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Scott County, Waldron, 34.89843, -94.09076","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":537},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Missouri","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":50},{"value":"1995","hits":44},{"value":"1992","hits":41},{"value":"1996","hits":40},{"value":"1993","hits":38},{"value":"2001","hits":32},{"value":"2011","hits":31},{"value":"1997","hits":28},{"value":"2002","hits":24},{"value":"1991","hits":23},{"value":"1998","hits":22},{"value":"2012","hits":20},{"value":"2010","hits":16},{"value":"1999","hits":15},{"value":"2003","hits":15},{"value":"1989","hits":12},{"value":"2000","hits":12},{"value":"2004","hits":12},{"value":"2013","hits":12},{"value":"2007","hits":11},{"value":"2005","hits":10},{"value":"2006","hits":10},{"value":"2009","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":7},{"value":"1990","hits":7},{"value":"1984","hits":6},{"value":"2008","hits":6},{"value":"1986","hits":4},{"value":"1985","hits":3},{"value":"1987","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":1},{"value":"1983","hits":1},{"value":"2017","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1954","max":"2017","count":564,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"filing","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}