{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1289","title":"Proceedings: Compiled court documents and correspondence","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":["1998-01-21/1998-06-16"],"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--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: Compiled court documents and correspondence"],"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/1289"],"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":["40 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1343","title":"Proceedings: ''Joint Motion of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Joshua for Approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD'S) Revised Desegregation and Education Plan,'' 3 copies","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":["1998-01-21"],"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 integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joint Motion of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Joshua for Approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD'S) Revised Desegregation and Education Plan,'' 3 copies"],"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/1343"],"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":["247 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1689","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan, districts' supplement to past and pending claims against the state defendants, and ODM report, ''1997-98 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County School Districts''","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":["1998-01"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School facilities","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan, districts' supplement to past and pending claims against the state defendants, and ODM report, ''1997-98 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County School Districts''"],"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/1689"],"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":["111 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, joint motion of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Joshua for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Joshua for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, districts' supplement to past and pending claims against the state defendants; District Court, addendum to districts' supplement to past and pending claims against the state defendants; District Court, order; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''1997-98 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County School Districts''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education 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 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * FILED EA U.S. DISTRICT COURT STERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN I 2 1998 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. , * J.i\\i I } 3 1998 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESES.REGATICN MONITORlrJG Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District - (\"PCSSD\") requesting that this Court grant summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula. 1 The Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") has responded to the PCSSD's motion.2 After carefully considering the motion and the response, this Court denies the PCSSD's motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula. Summary judgment is appropriate when \"the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the. affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material- fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). This Court concludes that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding formula. 1 Docket No. 3042. 2 Docket No. 3051. 104 Previously, this Court entered Orders granting summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions, 3 granting summary judgment on the issue of health insurance, and denying summary judgment as to special education and loss funding. 4 Currently, several of these issues are on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eighth Circuit has yet to rule, and therefore, these issues remain unresolved. These unresolved issues relate to the issues raised by the PCSSD in its current motion for summary judgment pending before this Court. Furthermore, although not of record in this case, recent newspaper reports indicate that certain aspects of the funding formula are still being litigated in Arkansas state court. See Cynthia Howell, Lawyers Seek to Delay Trial in School Funding Suit, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Jan. 8, 1998, at 2B. Because there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding formula, this Court denies the PCSSD's current motion for summary judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ff\\._day of January 1998. 3 Docket No. 2930. 4 Docket No. 2968. ~ ~,4t.1 UNITED STA ~ISTRICTJ GE fHfS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCk:ET SHEET IN COUPUANCE ~ RULE 5e ANOOA 7'9(8) FACP ON 1//t;;. ~ . IV  l/l1 :_ 2 MICHAEL E. GANS - Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT \u0026 CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 MARKET STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101 January 16, 1998 VOICE (314) 539-3600 ABBS (BOO) 652-8671 Is. wustt.edu/Sth.cir RECEIVED Mr. Jim McCormack Clerk U.S. DIS1RICT COURT, EASTERN ARKANSAS Room 402 600 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 JAN 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ Re : 96-2047EALR L.R. School Dist. vs. Servicemaster Manag. Dear Clerk: The mandate of this Court is enclosed together with a receipt. Will the clerk of the district court please sign, date and return the receipt to this office. w~~~rt.~ Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court led Enclosure( s) District Court Clerk-Re : Files _x_Enclosed please find : 1 vol. 1R {J)a-J.nor- ~~e_J\\ 'Wt/!(J,,:m,Jj;) ( LETIER FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY) cc: Christopher John Heller Joseph Steven Mowery John C. Everett Samuel Arnold Perroni William Henry Trice III Richard Wilson Roachell John W. Walker Robert Pressman Norman J . Chachkin Philip K. Lyon M. Samuel Jones III Nelwyn Leone Davis Tim C. Humphries Office of Desegregation Monitor Horace Alvin Walker Perlesta Arthur Hollingsworth Kenneth G. Torrence Otis Henr y Storey District Court/Agency Case Number(s) : 82-CV -866 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~Q~t l~Ti:llCT cfJRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 1 111 ~ D,S I RI T Ar- '\\, N~\u003clS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 2 1 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT J,%1~S WM CORMACK, Cl r:-r:i:\u003c B;:: PLAmTIFF O::? C~~ .~ v. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL JAN 2 3 1998 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS OFFICE Of KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF LRSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plainti.,ff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for their Joint Motion For Approval_ of - LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan state: 1. Joshua and LRSD move for tentative and, ultimately, fina l approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). 2. On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and requested approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated  September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On that date, counsel for Joshua confirmed in writing Joshua's agreement to support approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. See Exhibit B. Also on that same date, the LRSD Board of Directors approved the Janua~y 16 Revised Plan and authorized submission of the plan to this Court for approval. 3. LRSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this Motion: a. that the record in this case supports modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations; b. that the January 16 Revised Plan is an appropriate modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations; c. that the January 16 Revised Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members; and, d. that, if LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan during its term and implements in good faith the programs, policies and procedures related thereto, LRSD will be unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations at the end of the 2000-01 school year. 4. As a part of the compromise and settlement between LRSD and Joshua, Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation. 5. LRSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement cannot be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. ~ Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, LRSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit c. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua 2 class members to submit written objections to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. LRSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. LRSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; shall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers; shall prominently post the notice at all. school; and shall cause the notice to be broadcast over the cable television channel controlled by LRSD. 6. In light of their agreement, LRSD and Joshua respectfully request that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled.  7. LRSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members; that the notice attached hereto as Exhibit c be published at least thirty (30) days the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections; that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled; and that this Court . finally approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS 3 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE, CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 s. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 BY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following pe?jes~ depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this day of January, 1998. 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 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 General 4 SBC'l'IOII 1: Little Rock . School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan January 16, 1998 Prior Agreements and Orders. 1.1. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements 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 Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 2 8 , 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 or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 1. 2. This Revised Plan does not affect the Joshua Intervenors' (\"Joshua's\") right to enforce the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little ' Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"). 1.3. Although this Revised Plan supersedes the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, LRSD expects to continue to work cooperatively with PCSSD and NLRSD in the areas addressed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. \"i' EXHIBIT I A SBCTXOH 2: Obligations. 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure , that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. 2. 2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in ' a fair and equitable manner. 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of AfricanAmerican teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers 2 to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. 2,2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. 2.2.s. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. 2.2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. 2.2.7. LRSD sha,l l negotiate with the Knight Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. 3 2. 4. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. 2. 5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 2. 6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures 4 . I designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. LRSD shall provide transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extra-curricular activity. 2. 7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 2. 7.1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of ( - 5 either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2. 8. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2. 9. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools. 2. 9. 1. Within 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. 2.9.2. Within 180 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall report by school the results of its assessment of the allocation of resources. 2.10. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities. 2.11. LRSD shall implement programs, procedures designed to ensure that there discrimination in the services. provision of guidance policies and/or is no racial and counseling 2 .11. 1. Guidance counselors shall work with students in an effort to provide for more equity in academic honors, awards and scholarships. 6 2.12. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination. 2 .12. 1. LRSD shall implement a 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. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. 2.13. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations  under this Revised Plan. 2.13.1 The LRSD Superintendent shall be responsible for overseeing LRSD's compliance with this Revised Plan in accordance Section 6. SECTION 3: Student Assignments. 3.1. Attendance Zones. While this Revised Plan does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan, LRSD attendance zones may be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 3.1.1. Satellite Zones. attendance zones where the impact LRSD may eliminate satellite would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students; 3. 1. 2. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD may assign students 7 to area1 elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent African-American) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in Section 3.1.3. below; 3.1.3. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent AfricanAmerican, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school; or, b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African-American students. If a satellite zone is established, it shall be of su'f ficient size to ensure substantial desegregation at the school. 3. 1.4. High Schools. LRSD may assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that, to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. 3.2. Voluntary student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 1The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 8 school year, the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 3.2.1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes le~s than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3. 2. 2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (~ 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to a racially balanced LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3.2.3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3.2.4. Employees' ,Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3. 2. 5. Special circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to 9 capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3.2.6. outside students. LRSD 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 LRSD; and, 3.2.7. Transportation . LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following ,. exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. 3.3. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: a. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program; b. King High Intensity Learning Program; c. Washington Math Science Program; d. Henderson Health Science Program; e. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program; ,. f. Central International Studies Program; and, g. McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. However, LRSD agrees that during the term of this Revised Plan it will not modify 10 or discontinue a magnet program which is successful. 3.4. Middle Schools. LR.SD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or'all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to chan9e the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. 3. 5. Ninth Grade Schools. Because of limited capacity at LRSD's high schools, it may be necessary as a part of the orderly conversion to middle schools to establish two or more schools composed entirely of ninth grade students. If so, LRSD shall assign students to the ninth grade schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each ninth grade school shall be within plus or minus ten percentage points from the district-wide percentage of ninth grade African-American students. 3.6. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD sI+all not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor 11 maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. 3.7. Modification Standard. During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a schools other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable; or, past 3.7.2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines ( i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. 3.8. Racial Balance. This Revised Plan recognizes that the ,. desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. 3.9. Housing. LRSD and Joshua co:mmi t to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent 12  recurrence of, segregated housing patterns. SBC'l'IO 4: Interdistrict schools. LRSD and PCSSD shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: 4.1. PCSSD Interdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools; 4. 2. LRSD Interdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as Interdistrict Schools; 4. 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; 4.4. 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; 4.5. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools; 4.6. 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, 13 4. 7. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistric, t transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. \u0026BCTIOB s: student Achievement. 5.1. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. LRSD contemplates that the four yearold classes will remain at their present sites or in the same general location. 5.2. Reading/Language Arts. 5.2.1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal2 that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page; 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; 2The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. 14 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 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 school without such experiences; 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. 5. 2. 2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: 15 ,. ,. 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 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; f. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; g. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1697","title":"Court filings: District Court, emergency motion of the Joshua intervenors concerning the payment of attorneys' fees by the Little Rock School District (LRSD)","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)","Joshua Intervenors"],"dc_date":["1997-12-12"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, emergency motion of the Joshua intervenors concerning the payment of attorneys' fees by the Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"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/1697"],"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":["53 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.  I  FILED U.S. DISTR ICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COtmTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 2 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NO. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED DEC 1 5 1997 OFFICE OF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENOR Emergency Motion of ~~Wt{-hWNlmifHGrvenors Concerning The Payment of Attorneys' Fees by the LRSD The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order providing for the payment of interim attorneys' fees by the LRSD to intervenors, periodically, in the manner described at the conclusion of this motion. The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the plaintiff class has adequate representation in the proceeding to consider the proposed, revised plan of the LRSD, and thereafter. This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum and the following allegations: (1.) The LRSD has filed a motion, which this court has scheduled for a hearing beginning February 2, 1997, seeking approval of a \"Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" This plan is 16 pages in length. In contrast, the current plan of the LRSD is approximately 230 pages in length and the Interdistrict Plan is 64 pages in length. (2.) It is the stated purpose of the LRSD, in part, to have 1 / the Revised Plan \"supersede and extinguish\" the current LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan. Revised Plan, at 1. (3.) The Revised Plan is in substantial part and in areas of critical importance merely an outline for a plan, rather than a plan that could be enforced by the court. For example: (a.) In 15 instances, in paragraphs II.B. through II.P, the words \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and\\or procedures,\" followed by a particular subject matter, appear. Revised Plan at 1-3. The \"programs, policies, and\\or procedures\" are not identified in the Plan. Compare Rule 65(d), Fed.R.Civ.Pro. (b . ) In Part V. of the Revised Plan, which deals with \"Student Achievement,\" the Plan specifies outcome goals for students in a way making it impossibe to determine the level of mastery intended. See Parts V.B.1.a. (at 8), V.B.2.a. (at 9-10), and V. B. 3. a. ( at 10) . (c.) In Part VII, the Revised Plan addresses a \"Compliance Program,\" without setting forth compliance standards. Revised Plan at 13. (4 . ) The Joshua Intervenors propounded written discovery requests to the LRSD concerning the Revised Plan. See copy of answers attached as exhibit A. One purpose of the discovery was to determine if the LRSD was willing to work with the Joshua Intervenors to render Part II. of the Plan, addressing \"Obligations,\" more specific. The LRSD made a nonresponsive answer to this query. Interrogatory 4 at 3. 2 /  (5.) One purpose of the discovery was to secure the identification of the underlying \"programs, policies and procedures\" which would appear to be determinative of the efficacy of the plan with regard to the plaintiff class. The answers to written discovery indicate that to a substantial degree, the underlying materials have not been identified. See Interrogatories 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22(i), 23, 27, 30. (6.) One purpose of the discovery was to identify the reason or reasons why in many instances the proposed plan did not identify the particular programs, policies or procedures to be implemented. The LRSD responded that \"LRSD believes, in order for the Revised Plan to be successful, the details related to implementation of the revised plan must be subject to modification without district court involvement.\" Interrogatory 3. In responding to an interrogatory about school construction, the LRSD again indicated its intent to have the power to define and redefine standards determinative of the value of the revised plan for the plaintiff class. Interrogatory 23. (7.) The LRSD seeks the approval of a new plan which is vague and standardless in many important respects, and designedly so, in a context in which the court and ODM have, over the years, found the performance of the agents of the LRSD in implementing the court-approved agreements to be deficient. See, for example, the court's statement to the LRSD school board members in March 1993; Mem. and Order, March 11 , 1996, at 8 (\"The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance 3 I  . ' towards its comitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements although some improvements have been made.''); Transcript June 23, 1995, at 34, 72, 87; July 6, 1995, at 123-24, 176-77, 241. (8.) In view of the foregoing allegations, it is reasonable to characterize the activities of the Joshua Intervenors in responding to the Revised Plan as protecting the extensive relief, previously agreed upon and approved by the courts. However, the relief sought in this motion is appropriate whether or not the court agrees with the foregoing position regarding the proposed Revised Plan. (9.) Assuming for the purposes of this motion the existence of the agreement on future fees found by this court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 25, 1996, at 6-7, the agreement dealt with \"the life of the settlement plans ... \" (Chachkin); see also Mr. Heller (\"in our settlement plans\"). The activities of the Joshua Intervenors to date and in the future, with reference to the Revised Plan which would \"supersede and extinguish\" the LRSD and Interdistrict plans, are outside the parameters of the agreement found to exist by the court. Therefore, the Joshua Intervenors should be permitted to secure fees and costs for such work, and other work related to the Revised Plan, in accord with the standards last discussed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Jenkins v. Missouri, 115 F.3d 554 (1997). (10.) Assuming for the purposes of this motion the existence 4 I' of the agreement on future fees found by this court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 25, 1996, at 6-7, it is appropriate, in the totality of the circumstances of this case, to modify the agreement to delete the limitation on fee awards in the post-judgment phase of this case [see Appeal of the LRSD, 949 F.2d 253, 258 {8th Cir. 1991)], thereby restoring the applicability of the standard discussed in Jenkins v. Missouri. supra. The agreement will have been in force for seven years, during which an extraordinary amount of activity by the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors has been necessary, both in and out of court, much due to the deficient performance of the agents of the LRSD. This deficient performance has often been noted by this court, as evidenced by the examples cited above. See also Transcript, August 19, 1996, at 102. In addition, the continuation of the agreement will undermine the ability of the Joshua Intervenors to adequately represent the class. See the attached Affidavit of John W. Walker. (11.) Considerable work will be necessary in connection with the consideration of the Revised Plan, including responding to voluminous written discovery requests submitted by LRSD to intervenors' representatives. In addition, the LRSD proposal is for the Revised Plan to take effect eight months hence and to be in effect for at least three school years. {12.) This court has the authority to provide for an interim .award of fees and litigation costs, particularly when needed to protect the functioning of the private attorney general concept. 5 --- -- - -----  (13,) With regard to the hourly rates sought for the work of the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, as noted in the prayer for relief below, see the following materials previously filed: John W. Walker -- Fee Petition, Nov. 21, 1995, Aff. of John w. Walker, at 1-7, 12-14; Supplemental Response of the Joshua Intervenors, Aug. 29, 1996, at 7 and Enclosure Two; Robert Pressman -- The Joshua Intervenors Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees (Sept. 1996), Sept. 27, 1996, Declaration of Robert Pressman and Attachments; Joy C. Springer -- Fee Petition, Nov. 21, 1995, Affidavit of Joy C. Springer, at 1-5, 19-20. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the court enter an order: (a.) declaring that the work of the Joshua Intervenors' representatives concerning the Revised Plan is outside the scope of the agreement, previously found to exist by the court, limiting fee awards; (b.) declaring that the agreement of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD is modified, pursuant to the .court's authority to modify a consent decree, by eliminating the limitation on fee awards in the postjudgment stage of this case (with the understanding that the general standard governing fees at the postjudgment stage of a case will then apply); (c.) providing that the LRSD pay the Joshua Intervenors' representatives monthly their reasonable fees and costs, upon submission of adequate documentation, with the court available to rule on any portion of a request considered by the LRSD to be 6 outside the bounds normally governing fee awards; (d.) providing that the fees be paid at the following rates: John w. Walker ($ 250 per hour), Robert Pressman ($ 200 per hour), and Joy c. Springer($ 50 per hour); and (e) providing that the LRSD shall have the right to request the court to reconsider the procedure detailed in (c.) and (d.) after it has been in operation for 12 months; (f) providing such other and\\or different relief as the needs of justice may require. Robert Pressman MA 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 W. Walker AR 64046 W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was sent via United States mail on thi D e 1997 to all counsel of record and sent via counsel for LRSD. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEiVED DtL 1 5 1997 I, John W. Walker, a.ffiant herein, state under oath the following: FLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTrllCT ARKANSAS DEC 1 2 1997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Bv: PLAINTIFF = -~ t:lEP.eLE1:111: DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. A majority of the cases being handled by my office are in the nature of civil rights litigation. 2. The clients in these cases are usually not fee paying clients whereby this office could on a regular basis bill them for our services. There are in such a practice unexpected losses, such as when the entire fee in the Judy Smith case was lost due to the bankruptcy of Harvest Foods. 3 Many of these cases are handled on a contingency fee basis thus causing the office to utilize a substantial amount of the fees collected on other cases to be a basis for support of these cases. 4. In the case ofLRSD, when the Eighth Circuit awarded fees to be paid in the case herein, a substantial amount was paid to the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and to the estate of Wiley Branton, Sr. who had worked on this case for many years. Moreover, a substantial amount of the fee award was expended for expenses incurred in connection with the litigation herein. Furthermore, because of the taxing accounting method for purposes of making payments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA), large amounts of the Little Rock portion of the fee award were paid in that year or the next for federal and state income taxes. S. The costs of the representation of the class are enonnous and involve fees and costs to staff who monitor the case and who assist class members in their efforts to secure or retain rights believed by counsel to be afforded by the settlement. 6. The present scheduled hearing involves considerable preparation time including discovery, costs of extensive depositions from the two superintendents and five major level administrators and response to the substantial set of interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff class. This time and expense involvement comes during the period of the holidays, the end of the year, and the beginning of of the new year, when there is a need for attention, not only to legal presentation, but also to the overall business. It also comes at a time when the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) is launching a serious attack upon the court approved settlement plan and is seeking to be declared unitary .. 7. In order to provide the court with insight into the plaintiff, LRSD's, tactic to overburden an already weakened office (no fees for more than $1,000,000.00 worth of work over a seven year period), the Friday firm proposes to take depositions of our representative simultaneously with our deposing the Superintendent and the staff. A response to that undertaking takes considerable time and effort. It distracts from inquiry into the plan. It also comes at a time when we still have our monitoring obligations which become more time consuming as the semester end approaches, based upon past experiences. Moreover, we are further handicapped because of the fact that we do not have the benefit of the usual Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) reports for the past eighteen (18) months which would reflect the current or ongoing status of the LRSD's implementation of the desegregation plan. 8. The class stands to be adversely affected if our preparation for and participation in the February 2, 1998 hearing is not adequate. As it stands now, although the public belief is to the contrary, a fee drought for seven years from this case leaves us unable to meet the efforts of defense - counsel, supported by unregulated and unlimited funds, in an effort to defeat the very plan which they bugled in 1989 before the Court and the 8th Circuit. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge information and belief. SUBSCRIBED and SWORN before me this ~day of December, 1997.  ()fa a' Poivelx  Ex h; h,t A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF LRSD'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF:S DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Answers to The Joshua Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents states: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name, title, address and telephone number of each and every individual assisting in the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection. This inte~rogatory requests information which is privileged under the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the following persons assisted in the preparation of these answers: Dr. Les Carnine, Christopher Heller and John c. Fendley, Jr. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: In 15 instances in paragraphs II. B. through II. P. of the proposed new plan, the words \"LRSD shall implement programs policies and/or procedures\" followed by a particular subject matter appear. Please identify separately for OEC5S97 7 each ot these 15 paragraphs all programs, policies and procedures  which you maintain ar~ currently implemented and are intended to be encompassed by the reference in the particular subparagraph of Pa~t II. of the proposed plan. In addition, please specify when the implementation of the particular program, policy or procedure began. Lastly, as to each sub-paragraph, please indicate whether work is underway to develop a particular program, policy or procedure to implement the obligation and, if so, describe generally the nature of the initiative(s) and the anticipated completion date(s).  ANSWER: Except as otherwise provided in LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), the obligations set forth in Section II were not intended to encompass any particular implemented. program, policy and procedure currently being As stated in Section XI of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year will be a transition year in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan during the 1998-99 school year. During the transition year, LRSD will be evaluating current programs, policies and procedures and developing new programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in order to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Some of this work has already been completed and is contained in the work team reports submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors in August of this year. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please explain the reason(s) that the proposed plan does not include in the 15 instances referred to in Interrogatory No. 2, or in any instance, the identification of the 11-.\"\"'4..,._jo,I,._ 2  particular programs, policies and procedures to be implemented. (If LRSD believes that there is identification of a particular standard in one or more instances, please answer as to obligations where you agree that there is no identification of a particular standard or program). ANSWER: The Revised Plan includes specific programs, policies and/or procedures with regard to student assignments (Section III \u0026 IV), African-American academic achievement (Section V), equitable allocation of certified personnel (Section VI) and compliance (Section VII). With regard to the remaining obligations, LRSD believes that, in order for the Revised Plan to be successful, the details related to implementation of the Revised Plan must be subject to modification without district court involvement. LRSD firmly believes that flexibility is essential to instilling in the  qistrict a_ sense of responsibility and accountability. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Would the system refuse to support adoption of the revised plan if the plan included the identification of particular programs, policies and/or procedures, or other steps, to implement the \"obligations\" identified in Part II? If so, explain the reason(s) for the system's position. ANSWER: The Revised Plan does identify particular programs, policies and/or procedures. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you agree that as written, there would be compliance with the provisions of II.B. through II.P. of the proposed plan if the system implemented, as to the particular sub-paragraph, programs QI: policies QI: procedures regarding the ~11..a\\lonl~-- 3 I I I I \\  particular matter addressed in the paragraph. If the answer is negative, please explain the basis for the answer. ANSWER: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: As the plan is written, would the court have the authority, in the opinion of the LRSD, to hold a system official (s) (sic) in contempt of court for failure to implement a term of a particular policy of the district, which the LRSD views as encompassed by one of the sub-paragraphs in II.B. through II.P. of the plan, but which is not specified in the plan. If your answer is in the affirmative, please explain the basis f~r the answer. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory calls for the lega1 opinion of counsel for LRSD which is privileged under the attorneyclient privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the district court would have authority to enforce the Revised Plan using its contempt power. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As the plan is written, does any provision of paragraphs II.B. through II.P. of the plan require any action on the part of the LRSD if at a particular school there is substantial racial disparity, atypical in the LRSD system, in the numbers of black students suspended, the numbers of black males placed in special education classes, or the numbers of black students in the gifted and talented program. If the answer is affirmative, please identify the provision(s) which is the basis of the answer. 4 \\ ANSWER: Paragraphs G., H. and I. of Section II state LRSD's I obligations with regard to special education, student discipline and gifted and talented, respectively. Compliance with the~e paragraphs would require LRSD to investigate a racial disparity which varies substantially from what would be expected. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you maintain that the .LRSD complies, currently, with each obligation set forth in Part II. of the plan. If not, please describe in detail the area(s) of noncompliance. ANSWER: The obligations set forth in Section II encompass the core obligations from LRSD' s current desegregation plan. LRSD maintains that it has substantially complied with its current desegregation plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: With respect to II.B. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the proportion black in the relevant labor market and the source of this information, and the proportion black of the work force at present. ANSWER: LRSD intends to rely on federal EEOC statistics for Pulaski County, the State of Arkansas and the nation as a whole to determine the percentage of qualified African-Americans in the relevant labor market. With regard to the proportion of AfricanAmerican teachers and administrators, see Exhibits A, B and C attached. LRSD's noncertified personnel is 73.8% African-American. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: With respect to II.C. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the meaning of the words \"the pool of candidates eligible 5 for promotion\", the proportion black in that pool and the source of  the information, and the proportion black of the persons employed in the category at present.  ANSWER: The \"pool of candidates eligible for promotion\" includes current employees who satisfy all eligibility requirements imposed by law or by the Board for a position. LRSD objects to identifying every position for which every employee is currently eligible for promotion as unduly burdensome. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: With respect to II.D. of the proposed plan, please identify the positions covered within the term \"certified personnel\" and provide as to each category the number of persons currently employed in the LRSD by race . ANSWER: \"Certified personnel\" are LRSD employees who must possess teaching or administrative certificates issued by the State of Arkansas in order to hold their position. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: With respect to II.E. of the proposed plan, please identify any category of certified personnel where the LRSD does not have the right to assign personnel for the good of the system and the basis of the limitation. ANSWER: See Articles XV through XVIII of the PN Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 6 \". INTERROGATORY NO. 13: With respect to II.H. of the proposed e plan, please describe in detail any specific initiative(s) in the LRSD a.t present, whether involving particular personnel, or standards, designed to guard against black students' receiving discipline for conduct for which white students are not disciplined, black students' receiving discipline for trivial matters, and/or black students' receiving more severe discipline than white students for similar conduct. ANSWER: LRSD expects all of its students, regardless of race or socioeconomic background, to comply with the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. If a student fails to comply, the student will be disciplined as provided in the Handbook. Discipline information including the race of the student, the race of the administrator, the nature of the offense and the sanction imposed is compiled by the schools and maintained by LRSD. LRSD's Associate Superintendent for information in an attempt discrimination. Student Discipline reviews this to identify possible racial INTERROGATORY NO. 14: With respect to II.I. of the proposed plan, please define, with specificity, the word \"qualified,\" as it applies to each of the three areas discussed in the obligation; namely \"extracurricular activities\", \"advanced placement courses\", and \"gifted and talented\" programs. ANSWER: The phrase \"qualified African-American students\" means African-American students who satisfy the eligibility criteria for an activity or program. For many activities and 7  programs, there are eligibility criteria other than student interest. INTERROGATORY NO, 15: With respect to II.J. of the propos~d plan, does LRSD agree that as written the system would be in compliance with this provision if the system continued to implement any two programs with its federal Title I monies to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. If not, lease (sic) explain the basis for the disagreement. ANSWER: No. LRSD must also implement the programs, policies and/or procedures set forth in Section V of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: With respect to II.L. of the proposed plan, please define the terms \"equitable allocation,\" \"technological resources,\" and \"educational resources.\" Also, please identify any data source allowing a determination of whether these resources are equitably allocated to LRSD schools at present. ANSWER: The phrase \"equitable allocation\" means to allocate based on need and without bias or favoritism. The term \"technological resources\" means up-to-date computer and information technology. The term \"educational resources\" includes teachers, teacher aides, equipment and supplies. With regard to a data source for determing whether these resources are currently equitably allocated, see the technology work team report, the individual school profiles and the LRSD budget. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: With respect to II.M. of the proposed plan, please define the term \"equitable\" and identify the matters encompassed in the terms \"maintenance and repair.\" In addition, 8 ., . please identify any source of data available to -ascertain compliance with this obligation on a school-by-school basis. ANSWER: The term \"equitable\" means based on need and witho~t bias or favoritism. The terms \"maintenance and repair\" include the routine upkeep of the building and grounds and the repair or replacement of elements of the building and grounds which are no longer functional. LRSD maintains records which would indicate maintenance requests submitted by schools, the priority assigned to those requests and when and if those requests were acted upon. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: With respect to II.N. of the proposed plan, please identify any specific initiatives currently undertaken in the LRSD to ascertain whether or not guidance or counseling services provided to African-American students involve steering to a restricted range of courses and/or postsecondary educational opportunities. ANSWER: LRSD recognizes that African-American students are underrepresented in upper-level courses and has implemented strategies to address that issue. Specifically with regard to guidance and counseling services, LRSD has requested a National Science Foundation grant to fund training modeled after TESA and EQUALS to assist counselors in motivating African-American students to take the courses necessary to later be successful in upper-level science and math courses. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: With respect to II.O. of the proposed plan, does LRSD maintain that this subparagraph adds anything to 9 other obligations of the plan. If so, please describe with specificity what it adds. ANSWER: Yes. The obligations in Section II should be interpreted consistent with Paragraph o. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: With respect to II. P. of the proposed plan, please set forth the number of persons the LRSD plans to assign on a full-time basis to compliance/monitoring activities and the categories of positions to be staffed. In addition, please describe any steps to insure that the make-up of the staff includes a substantial number of African-American persons and any role which LRSD is willing to give the representative of the Joshua Intervenors in the selection of this staff. ANSWER: These decisions have not yet been made. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: With respect to III. A. 1. of the proposed plan, please identify any document , and any existing analysis stored in any other manner projecting school make-up by race if the steps described in this subparagraph are implemented. If any such data does not currently exist, please describe how such a projection could be done with data and resources available to the LRSO. ANSWER: LRSD is currently working with Edulog software to project school make-up under scenarios consistent with Section III of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: With respect to III. B. I.-5 of the proposed plan, please: (i) identify all written standards governing these transfers and (ii) describe any unwritten practices governing flllaN\"\"-1'\"711 ....... ,...._ 10 one or more of these transfers. (iii) In addition, please define the concepts of \"capacity limitations\" and \"reasonable requirement\" identifying any designations of schools capacities to be utilized. (iv) In addition, please explain the language \"a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student\" by reference to the circumstances of youth receiving such transfers in 1997-98 and explain who does and who would decide that the requisite circumstances exist. (v) Lastly, please identify the numbers of students by race utilizing each category of such transfers in 1997-98. ANSWER: (i) No additional standards have been developed beyond what is contain in the Revised Plan. (ii) None. (iii) A school's capacity is a function of the physical plant and the educational programs being implemented at a school. At this time, LRSD is using the school capacity numbers attached hereto as Exhibit E. The \"reasonable requirements\" described in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of Section III.B. relate to procedural requirements which may be imposed by LRSD to ensure that student assignment occurs in a timely and efficient manner. ( iv) Special circumstances transfers as described by the Revised Plan are currently handled through an appeals committee composed of five members with individual members selected by the LRSD Board of Directors, the Biracial Committee, the PTA Council 11 and the Little Rock CTA. The committee reviews requests for transfers based on geographic isolation, racial isolation, medical hardship and other extenuating circumstances. This committee was established by the Tri-District plan and has been continued by LRSD under its current plan. (v) Records concerning transfers will be made available upon request at a time and date mutually agreed to by counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: With respect to III. E. of the proposed plan, please identify any potential sites for the school in west Little Rock, including any sites set forth in any study. In addition, please state whether the LRSD envisions the court's approving the site prior to its final approval. ANSWER: No potential site has been identified. Although LRSD anticipates keeping both the court and the parties informed about the site selection process, the site would not have to be approved by the court except as provided in Section IX.B. of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: With respect to IV.E. of the proposed plan, please describe any existing agreements, standards, and practices relating to cooperative efforts of the LRSD and PCSSD. ANSWER: See Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: With respect to V.B. and C. of the proposed plan, please (i) identify the author or authors of the provisions, committees and entities, designating the provision or provisions associated with each such author; ( ii) identify any document(s) providing further explanation of any provision(s) of r:--~Jooh.- 12  the proposal; (iii) regarding parts B.l.a., B.2.a., and B.J.a., I please identify any standards describing the level of competency envisioned in each instance and how it would be assessed; is developing the standards and the general timelines for that effort; and (iv) regarding these three parts of the plan, please state whether LRSD plans to have students satisfy a test requirement prior to moving to the next grade; if the matter is not decided, but such a requirement remains an option, please indicate. ANSWER: See curriculum work team report. INTE "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1693","title":"Court filings: District Court, interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors","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":["1997-12-10"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors"],"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/1693"],"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":["49 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 DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. - 33 and 34: GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean Joshua or any person acting on Joshua's behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm, associaiion, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C} \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of f:\\homolfendlcy~rod-jooh.m. information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, financial statements and records. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; f:\\homolfcnd l.:yU ...ildoo-jcoh..- 2 (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the persons name, business and residence address(es); and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such person known or reasonably believed by you to have present possession, custody, or control thereof, and a brief description of the subject matter thereof, all with sufficient particularity to request its production under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (iii) As to a communication, shall mean the date of the communication, the type of communication (telephone conversation, meeting, etc.), the place where the communication took place, the identity of the person who made the communication, the identity of each person who received the communication, and of each person present when it was made and the subject matter discussed; (F) \"Pertaining to\" Shall mean constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, 3 conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified; (G) To \"describe in detail\" Shall mean to provide with respect to any act, occurrence, transaction, event, statement, communication or conduct (hereinafter collectively, \"act\") all facts pertaining to any such act known to the person answering after due inquiry, including but not limited to a description of each act, the d~te, the location, and the identify of each person involved; (H) \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope; (I) \"Revised Plan\" shall mean LRSD Revised Desegregation - and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997; (J) \"current plan\" shall mean the LRSD Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992; all page and line citations to the current plan shall refer to current plan as set forth in LRSD's \"Desegregation Tool Kit,\" a copy of which is enclosed; (K) \"Interdistrict Plan\" shall mean the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992; all page and line citations to the Interdistrict Plan shall refer to Interdistrict Plan as set forth in LRSD's \"Desegregation Tool Kit,\" a copy of which is enclosed; The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past l:lhomolfcndleyUn,d'dco-jooh.Ull 4 tense includes the presence tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set for the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of responses to these interrogatories and requests for production of documents . INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify all persons who you intend to call as a lay witness at the hearing on the Revised Plan . INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who you - intend to call as an expert witness at the hearing on the Revised Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a written report signed by each expert witness identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 3 which contains a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for his testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness f:lhcmo\\kndieyUrod\\deo-jcoh.w 5 has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years. ' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all items, th~ngs and documents which you intend to introduce as an exhibit at the hearing on the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to student assignments? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 4 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to faculty? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 5 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to staff? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 6 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to transportation? If so, describe in detail f:lhcmo\\fcndlcyUnod\\doo-joah.inl 6 the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 7 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to extra-curricular activities? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 8 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to facilities? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 9 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Early Childhood Education component (pp. 4-19) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 10 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Special Programs component (pp. 20-27) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the f:\\homolfcrdlcyUr,d\\doe-j\u003c\u003eoh ... 7 basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 11 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the School Operations component (pp. 28-47) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 12 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Program for Accelerated Learning/Academic Support Programs (pp. 48-57) of the current - plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 13 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Gifted Education component (pp. 58-62) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 14 above. f:lhomolfcndlcyllrod'doo-jooh.u,t 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Multicultural Curriculum component (pp. 63-80) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 15 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Focused Activities component (pp. 81-85) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 16 above. - INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Parkview Science Magnet School component (pp. 86-92) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 17 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the McClellan Community School component (pp. 93-94) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. f:\\homclfcndleyllnd'dcojooh.mi 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 18 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Recruitment of Private School students component (p. 95) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . 18: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 19 above. INTERROGATORY NO . 20: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Federal Programs component (pp. 96-97) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 20 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Vocational Education component (pp. 98-99) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and i dentify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 21 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Library Media Services component (pp. 106-10) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the f:\\homc\\/erdlcyUnd'\u003cbjooh.inl 10 basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 22 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Special Education component {pp. 111-23) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 23 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Staff Development component {pp. 20-27) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 24 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Support Services component (pp. 129-30) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 25 above. f:lhomo\\kmlcyllrodldcojooh.n 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Parent Involvement/Community Linkages component (pp. 131-38) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 26 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Student Assignments component (pp. 139-44) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 27 above. - INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the New Futures For Little Rock component (p. 145) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 28 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Facilities component (pp. 146- 148) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. lc\\home\\fcndlcyllnodldoejooh.inl 12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 29 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Academic Programs and Curriculum Development component (pp. 152-70) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 30 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Operations component (pp. 171~189} of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents . identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 31 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Staffing component (pp. 190-204) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 32 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Parent f:\\hamolfendleyllradldeo-jooh.w 13 Involvement component (pp. 205-14) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 33 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Parent Recruitment (pp. 215-23) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 34 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Educational Equity Monitoring component (pp. 224-26) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 35 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Computerized Transportation System component (pp. 227-29) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 36 above. l:\\hamollordlcyllrtd\\doo-Jo,h.bo 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Introduction component (pp. 1-2) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 37 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Overview component (pp. 3-7) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 38 above. - INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the student Choices and Options component (pp. 8-12) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 39 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Summer School component (pp. 13- 20) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. f:\\homclfc.-dlcyUnid'dcojcob.inl 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 40 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Staff Development component (pp. 21-22) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 41 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the School Operations component (pp. 23-34) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 42 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Special Education component (pp. 35-53) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 43 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Guidance and Counseling Program component (pp. 54-55) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe f:lhom\u003c\\fcrdlcylll'ld'd.,o-jooh.n 16 in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all - facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 44 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Parental Involvement/Community Linkages component (pp. 56-58) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 45 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Public Relations component (pp. i-2) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 46 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with any order of the District Court pertaining to the current plan or Interdistrict Plan? If so, identify the order of the district court, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 47 above. r:lhorno1ren:11cy11nw1-.i..-jooh.in 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Please describe .in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1992-93 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 48 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1993-94 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 49 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1994-95 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 50 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1995-96 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . . 50: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 51 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1996-97 school year, including the f:lhomolfcndloyllndldco-jo,h.in 18 identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 52 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1997-98 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 53 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Please identify all persons not currently employed by LRSD known to you to have personal knowledge of LRSD's failure to comply with any obligation under either the current plan or the Interdistrict Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Please identify all of your communications with persons currently employed by LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with either the current plan or the Interdistrict Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 53: Please produce all documents pertaining to the communications identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 55 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in academic achievement? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. f:lhcmclfcndlcyllnd'dcejooh.inl 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 56 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in student discipline? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 57 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in special education? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 58 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in the gifted and talented program? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . 57: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 59 above . INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in participation in honors and advanced f:lhome\\fc,d loyllrodldco-jcoh.ir\u003c 20 placement courses? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 60 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Do you believe that continued implementation of the current plan and the Interdistrict Plan would result in LRSD achieving unitary status? If so, please identify when LRSD would be unitary and describe in detail the basis(es) for your response. If not, please describe in detail why and identify those aspects of school operations which would not be unitary. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Please identify by page number(s) the components of the current plan and Interdistrict Plan which you believe should be modified , and for each component identified, please: a. describe in detail why you believe the component should be modified; b. identify all facts and documents which support your belief that the component should be modified; c. describe in detail the program, policy or procedure which you believe should be substituted for the component; and, d. identify all facts and documents which support your belief that the program, policy or procedure described inc. above should be substituted for the component . f:lhomclfcndlcyll..d\\dco-jooh. in. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 62 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: Please identify by page number(s) those components of the current plan and Interdistrict Plan which you contend should be continued under the Revised Plan, and with regard to each component identified, please describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 63 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Do you agree with the recommendations 9on~ained in the Student Assignment Work Team report? If not, please identify each recommendation with which you disagree, describe in detail the basis(es) for your disagreement and identi fy all facts and documents which support your position. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 64 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Do you agree with the recommendations contained in the Curriculum Work Team report? If not, please identify each recommendation with which you disagree, describe in detail the basis(es) for your disagreement and identify all facts and documents which support your position. !:\\homo\\fcndlcy\\l..dldco-jooh.inl 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 65 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 66: Do you agree with the recommendations contained in the Technology Work Team report? If not, please identify each recommendation with which you disagree, describe in detail the basis(es) for your disagreement and identify all facts and documents which support your position. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Please produce -all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 66 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1691","title":"Court filings: District Court, plaintiff Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) answers to the Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the 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)","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-12-03"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, plaintiff Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) answers to the Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the 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/1691"],"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":["155 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 DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. vs. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS :~~~~I COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTRECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEC ~ 1997 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF LRSD, s AKiii~Ti MONITORING INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") for its Answers to The Joshua Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents states: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name, title, address and telephone number of each and every individual assisting in the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory requests information which is privileged under the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the following persons assisted in the preparation of these answers: Dr. Les Carnine, Christopher Heller and John c. Fendley, Jr. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: In 15 instances in paragraphs II. B. through II. P. of the proposed new plan, the words \"LRSD shall implement programs policies and/or procedures\" followed by a particular subject matter appear. Please identify separately for l:lhomollct'd lcy\\lrod'dco-joob.ra  ' . each of these 15 paragraphs all programs, policies and procedures - which you maintain are currently implemented and are intended to be encompassed by the reference in the particular subparagraph of Part II. of the proposed plan. In addition, please specify when the implementation of the particular program, policy or procedure began. Lastly, as to each sub-paragraph, please indicate whether work is underway to develop a particular program, policy or procedure to implement the obligation and, if so, describe generally the nature of the initiative(s) and the anticipated completion date(s). ANSWER: Except as otherwise provided in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), the obligations set forth in Section II were not intended to encompass any particular program, policy and procedure currently being implemented. As stated in Section XI of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year will be a transition year in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan during the 1998-99 school year. During the transition year, LRSD will be evaluating current programs, policies and procedures and developing new programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in order to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Some of this work has already been completed and is contained in the work team reports submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors in August of this year. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please explain the reason(s) that the proposed plan does not include in the 15 instances referred to in Interrogatory No. 2, or in any instance, the identification of the l:lh:\u003en-cllcndlcylll'ld'doo-jooh.,.. 2 particular programs, policies and procedures to be implemented. (If LRSD believes that there is identification of a particular standard in one or more instances, please answer as to obligations where you agree that there is no identification of a particular standard or program). ANSWER: The Revised Plan includes specific programs, policies and/or procedures with regard to student assignments (Section III \u0026 IV), African-American academic achievement (Section V), equitable allocation of certified personnel (Section VI) and compliance (Section VII). With regard to the remaining obligations, LRSD believes that, in order for the Revised Plan to be successful, the details related to implementation of the Revised Plan must be subject to modification without district court involvement. LRSD firmly believes that flexibility is essential to instilling in the - qistrict a sense of responsibility and accountability. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Would the system refuse to support adoption of the revised plan if the plan included the identification of particular programs, policies and/or procedures, or other steps, to implement the \"obligations\" identified in Part II? If so, explain the reason(s) for the system's pos i tion. ANSWER: The Revised Plan does identify particular programs, policies and/or procedures. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you agree that as written, there would be compliance with the provisions of II.B. through II.P. of the proposed plan if the system implemented, as to the particular sub-paragraph, programs or policies or procedures regarding the r:lhom,lr\u003cndlcyllr\u003e\u003cl'dca-jah.ra 3 particular matter addressed in the paragraph. If the answer is negative, please explain the basis for the answer. ANSWER: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: As the plan is written, would the court have the authority, in the opinion of the LRSD, to hold a system official (s) (sic] in contempt of court for failure to implement a term of a particular policy of the district, which the LRSD views as encompassed by one of the sub-paragraphs in II.B. through II.P. of the plan, but which is not specified in the plan. If your answer is in the affirmative, please explain the basis for the answer. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory calls for the legal opinion of counsel for LRSD which is privileged under the attorneyclient privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the district court would have authority to enforce the Revised Plan using its contempt power. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As the plan is written, does any provision of paragraphs II.B. through II.P. of the plan require any action on the part of the LRSD if at a particular school there is substantial racial disparity, atypical in the LRSD system, in the numbers of black students suspended, the numbers of black males placed in special education classes, or the numbers of black students in the gifted and talented program. If the answer is affirmative, please identify the provision(s) which is the basis of the answer. (:\\homolfcndlcyllndldoojooh.,.. 4 ANSWER: Paragraphs G., H. and I. of Section II state LRSD's obligations with regard to special education, student discipline and gifted and talented, respectively. Compliance with these paragraphs would require LRSD to investigate a racial disparity which varies substantially from what would be expected. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you maintain that the .LRSD complies, currently, with each obligation set forth in Part II. of the plan. If not, please describe in detail the area(s) of noncompliance. ANSWER: The obligations set forth in Section II encompass the core obligations from LRSD' s current desegregation plan. LRSD maintains that it has substantially complied with its current desegregation plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: With respect to II.B. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the proportion black in the relevant labor market and the source of this information, and the proportion black of the work force at present. ANSWER: LRSD intends to rely on federal EEOC statistics for Pulaski County, the State of Arkansas and the nation as a whole to determine the percentage of qualified African-Americans in the relevant labor market. With regard to the proportion of AfricanAmerican teachers and administrators, see Exhibits A, B and C attached. LRSD' s noncertified personnel is 73. 8% African-American. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: With respect to II.C. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the meaning of the words \"the pool of candidates eligible f:lhomolfcndlcyllnd'dc.-jc,oh.1W 5 for promotion\", the proportion black in that pool and the source of the information, and the proportion black of the persons employed in the category at present. ANSWER: The \"pool of candidates eligible for promotion\" includes current employees who satisfy all eligibility requirements imposed by law or by the Board for a position. LRSD objects to identifying every position for which every employee is currently eligible for promotion as unduly burdensome. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: With respect to II.D. of the proposed plan, please identify the positions covered within the term \"certified personnel\" and provide as to each category the number of persons currently employed in the LRSD by race. ANSWER: \"Certified personnel\" are LRSD employees who must possess teaching or administrative certificates issued by the State of Arkansas in order to hold their position. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: With respect to II.E. of the proposed plan, please identify any category of certified personnel where the LRSD does not have the right to assign personnel for the good of the system and the basis of the limitation. ANSWER: See Articles XV through XVIII of the PN Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. r:lhomellcndlcyUrld'da-jooh.,a 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I INTERROGATORY NO. 13: With respect to II.H. of the proposed plan, please describe in detail any specific initiative(s) in the LRSD at present, whether involving particular personnel, or standards, designed to guard against black students' receiving discipline for conduct for which white students are not disciplined, black students' receiving discipline for trivial matters, and/or black students' receiving more severe discipline than white students for similar conduct. ANSWER: LRSD expects all of its students, regardless of race or socioeconomic background, to comply with the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. If a student fails to comply, the student will be disciplined as provided in the Handbook. Discipline information including the race of the student, the race of the administrator, the nature of the offense and the sanction imposed is compiled by the schools and maintained by LRSD. LRSD's Associate Superintendent for Student Discipline reviews this information in an attempt to identify possible racial discrimination. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: With respect to II.I. of the proposed plan, please define, with specificity, the word \"qualified,\" as it applies to each of the three areas discussed in the obligation, namely \"extracurricular activities\", \"advanced placement courses\", and \"gifted and talented\" programs. ANSWER: The phrase \"qualified African-American students\" means African-American students who satisfy the eligibility criteria for an activity or program. For many activities and (:\\hoorcll'endlcyll..dldoo-jolh.ra 7 programs, there are eligibility criteria other than student interest. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: With respect to II.J. of the proposed plan, does LRSD agree that as written the system would be in compliance with this provision if the system continued to implement any two programs with its federal Title I monies to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. If not, lease (sic) explain the basis for the disagreement. ANSWER: No. LRSD must also implement the programs, policies and/or procedures set forth in Section V of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: With respect to II.L. of the proposed plan, please define the terms \"equitable allocation,\" \"technological resources,\" and \"educational resources.\" Also, please identify any data source allowing a determination of whether these resources are equitably allocated to LRSD schools at present. ANSWER: The phrase \"equitable allocation\" means to allocate based on need and without bias or favoritism. The term \"technological resources\" means up-to-date computer and information technology. The term \"educational resources'' includes teachers, teacher aides, equipment and supplies. With regard to a data source for determing whether these resources are currently equitably allocated, see the technology work team report, the individual school profiles and the LRSD budget. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: With respect to II.M. of the proposed plan, please define the term \"equitable\" and identify the matters encompassed in the terms \"maintenance and repair.\" In addition, /:lhomo,1/crdlcylltod'doo-jch.,.. 8 please identify any source of data available to ascertain compliance with this obligation on a school-by-school basis. ANSWER: The term \"equitable\" means based on need and without bias or favoritism. The terms \"maintenance and repair\" include the routine upkeep of the building and grounds and the repair or replacement of elements of the building and grounds which are no longer functional. LRSD maintains records which would indicate maintenance requests submitted by schools, the priority assigned to those requests and when and if those requests were acted upon. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: With respect to II.N. of the proposed plan, please identify any specific initiatives currently undertaken in the LRSD to ascertain whether or not guidance or counseling services provided to African-American students involve steering to a restricted range of courses and/or postsecondary educational opportunities. ANSWER: LRSD recognizes that African-American students are underrepresented in upper-level courses and has implemented strategies to address that issue. Specifically with regard to guidance and counseling services, LRSD has requested a National Science Foundation grant to fund training modeled after TESA and EQUALS to assist counselors in motivating African-American students to take the courses necessary to later be successful in upper-level science and math courses. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: With respect to II.O. of the proposed plan, does LRSD maintain that this subparagraph adds anything to r:\"\"'-lfcndley~r,d\\deo-jcoh.ra 9 other obligations of the plan. If so, please describe with specificity what it adds. ANSWER: Yes. The obligations in Section II should be interpreted consistent with Paragraph 0. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: With respect to II. P. of the proposed plan, please set forth the number of persons the LRSD plans to assign on a full-time basis to compliance/monitoring activities and the categories of positions to be staffed. In addition, please describe any steps to insure that the make-up of the staff includes a substantial number of African-American persons and any role which LRSD is willing to give the representative of the Joshua Intervenors in the selection of this staff. ANSWER: These decisions have not yet been made. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: With respect to III. A. 1. of the proposed plan, please identify any document and any existing analysis stored in any other manner projecting school make-up by race if the steps described in this subparagraph are implemented. If any such data does not currently exist, please describe how such a projection could be done with data and resources available to the LRSD. ANSWER: LRSD is currently working with Edulog software to project school make-up under scenarios consistent with Section III of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: With respect to III.B. I . -5 of the proposed plan, please: (i) identify all written standards governing these transfers and (ii) describe any unwritten practices governing l:ll,anollcndlcy\\Jnd'du-jooh.,a 10 one or more of these transfers. (iii) In addition, please define the concepts of \"capacity limitations\" and \"reasonable requirement\" identifying any designations of schools capacities to be utilized. (iv) In addition, please explain the language \"a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student\" by reference to the circumstances of youth receiving such transfers in 1997-98 and explain who does and who would decide that the requisite circumstances exist. (v) Lastly, please identify the numbers of students by race utilizing each category of such transfers in 1997-98. ANSWER: (i) No additional standards have been developed beyond what is contain in the Revised Plan. (ii) None. (iii) A school's capacity is a function of the physical plant and the educational programs being implemented at a school . At this time, LRSD is using the school capacity numbers attached hereto as Exhibit E. The \"reasonable requirements\" described in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of Section III.B. relate to procedural requirements which may be imposed by LRSD to ensure that student assignment occurs in a timely and efficient manner. (iv) Special circumstances transfers as described by the Revised Plan are currently handled through an appeals committee composed of five members with individual members selected by the LRSD Board of Directors, the Biracial Committee, the PTA Council r:lhomo\\fendlcyUnod'dc.-jooh.,a 11 and the Little Rock CTA. The committee reviews requests for transfers based on geographic isolation, racial isolation, medical hardship and other extenuating circumstances. This committee was established by the Tri-District plan and has been continued by LRSD under its current plan. (v) Records concerning transfers will be made available upon request at a time and date mutually agreed to by counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: With respect to III. E. of the proposed plan, please identify any potential sites for the school in west Little Rock, including any sites set forth in any study. In addition, please state whether the LRSD envisions the court's approving the site prior to its final approval. ANSWER: No potential site has been identified. Although LRSD anticipates keeping both the court and the parties informed about the site selection process, the site would not have to be approved by the court except as provided in Section IX.B. of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: With respect to IV.E. of the proposed plan, please describe any existing agreements, standards, and practices relating to cooperative efforts of the LRSD and PCSSD. ANSWER: See Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: With respect to V.B. and C. of the proposed plan, please (i) identify the author or authors of the provisions, committees and entities, designating the provision or provisions associated with each such author; ( ii) identify any document(s) providing further explanation of any provision(s) of f:lhomo\\fcndlcyllrod\\doo-jooh.,_ 12 the proposal; (iii) regarding parts B.l.a., B.2.a., and B.3.a., please identify any standards describing the level of competency envisioned in each instance and how it would be assessed; is developing the standards and the general timelines for that effort; and (iv) regarding these three parts of the plan, please state whether LRSD plans to have students satisfy a test requirement prior to moving to the next grade; if the matter is not decided, but such a requirement remains an option, please indicate. ANSWER: See curriculum work team report. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: With respect to V.C.4. of the proposed plan, what is the reason for evaluating Algebra I placement procedures and what would be done with the evaluation results. ANSWER: See curriculum work team report. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: With respect to V.D. of the proposed plan, please identify any standards for use of the \"additional funding.\" If none currently exist, how would standards be developed and in what time period. Lastly, what is the position of the LRSD regarding the use of some funds to pay area college students to tutor in these schools, during and outside the regular school day, on a one-to-one basis. ANSWER: See incentive school work team report and incentive school individual school plans. LRSD has not taken a position on the use of some funds to pay area college students to tutor in the incentive schools. INTERROGATORY NO. 28 : With respect to V.F. of the proposed plan, please identify any standards for this effort and provide a (:lhonwlfcrdlcyUtwd'-\"jcoh.- 13 definition of the language \"parental and community relations linkage system.\" ANSWER: See community links work team report. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: With respect to V.I. of the proposed plan, please explain why the title and the first paragraph apply to teachers and the next two paragraphs apply to certified personnel. As to V.B., what person or persons would decide when the desegregative impact would be outweighed. ANSWER: All of Section VI applies to certified personnel. The superintendent or his designee would decide when the desegregative impact would be outweighed by the educational benefit from allowing a teacher to remain in his or her present assignment or to transfer to another assignment. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 0: With respect to Part VII. of the proposed plan, please identify all documents alluded to in this part, including but not limited to \"compliance standards and procedures\", and/or further explanatory of the meaning of this part. ANSWER: The compliance standards and procedures have not yet been developed. Section VII is based on the requirements for an effective corporate integrity program under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 8Al.2. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: What if any impact would the court's approval of the proposed plan, or a modified version, have on the life of the agreement which LRSD maintains was made regarding fee payments to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors after the payment of (:lhomo\\lcrdlcyllnd'da,-jo,11.,_ 14 the amount described in the Settlement Agreement. If the LRSD view is that the agreement would continue in force, please set forth the terms of the agreement on which LRSD relies and explain how the agreement could continue in view of the terms of the agreement asserted by the LRSD. ANSWER: The fee agreement was part of the settlement agreement which is not being modified by the Revised Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please provide a copy of each document which you have identified in responding to interrogatories numbered 2 through 30. RESPONSE: LRSD will make the documents identified herein available for inspection upon request at a time and date mutually agreed to by counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Do you consider these interrogatories and req~est for documents as continuing and agree to supplement your answers as required by the Court's order of October 23, 1997? ANSWER: LRSD will comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the orders of the district court. r:\\homolfc..dlcy\\lr,d\\dao-_jool,.ra 15 VERIFICATION STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) I, Dr. Leslie V. Carnine, state under oath that I am the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, that the foregoing answers have been prepared from information gathered from personnel and records of the District, that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I am authorized to execute this document on behalf of the District. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY:~ DR. LESIEV.CARNINE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public, on this day of December, 1997. r:lhomolfcndl,:yllnodldco-jooh.,.. Christopher J. Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Little Rock School District BY: 16 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 3rd day of December, 1997. 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 ~ittle 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 f:'llornolfcndlcyUl'ICl'da-jooll.,.. 17 Elementary Teachers - 1993 , 17 i . 4 t---15--- --25.o ---- -- -1L2% - 18.2% -18.0% 3 Total ---  246 r 434  ...  i .f i IC PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT A Elementary Teachers - 1994 --- -- 18 - --- -- --- . 17 191)% -L5.3% . '---- --  61 . 5 % - -27. 2% - ' 0 Elementary Teachers - 1995 -,_,-----+--.,.,----+---- --------- ------ -- . 0 . 0 Elementary Teachers - 1996 I I ;- -r-- -- 56.3% -- ....... 22. I%- 2 12 4 Elementary Teachers - 1997 3 - -  9 r6   60. o -1 24.2 - 12 : \\  -- 2r- - 46.2% - --1 OA% - Elementary Teachers - 1998 i ! 3 ........... - 51.3% - .. 15.5% -- Secondary Teachers -1993 ALTLRN 4 2 66.7% CENTRAL 21 49 30.0% CLOVERDALE 2 30 6.3% DUNBAR 8 23 25.8% FAIR 7 29 19.4% FOREST HEIGHTS 9 20 31.0% HALL 9 35 20.5% HENDERSON 9 26 25.7% MABELVALE 3 20 13.0% MANNM/S 13 22 37.1% MCCLELLAN 12 24 33.3% PARK.VIEW 9 28 24.3% PULASKI HEIGHTS 4 28 12.5% SOUTHWEST 15 15 50.0% 93 Total 125 351 26.3% Secondary Teachers - 1994 ALTLRN 4 2 66.7% CENTRAL 25 48 34.2% CLOVERDALE 5 30 14.3% DUNBAR 8 25 24.2% FAIR 8 28 22.2% FOREST HEIGHTS 9 19 32.1% HALL 10 34 22.7% HENDERSON 8 30 21.1% MABELVALE 6 21 22.2% MANNM/S 13 25 34.2% MCCLELLAN 12 27 30.8% PARKVIEW 11 28 28.2% PULASKI HEIGHTS 4 29 12.1% SOUTHWEST 15 15 50.0% 94 Total 138 361 27.6% 40.4% 3.7% -20.0% -.5% -6.8% 4.8% -5.8% -.5% -13.2% 10.9% 7.1% -1.9% -13.8% 23.7% er;- -~=~ ... ;J~mlg,\u0026;? ',~zj~g,~~ 39.0% 6.6% -13.4% -3.4% -5.4% 4.5% -4.9% -6.6% -5.4% 6.6% 3.1% .5% -15.5% 22.3% PLAINTIFF'S 1 EXHIBIT s :5 J Secondary Teachers - 1995 Scn\"o' ~~- '~-~ . - ,._, . ::;;:. , . ..  - .. ---: -  ...,  - ~~ 1:eme..\" r:i-,i ..~... ~ ~ n,_i.c,..a, .i ,,f~ :-.-:..:.P.. ~e,rc\" ent,a_.g e , ' . . -  , ~- , . . . ~.  .-~-- -.: -~:~1:-.-- : .r.:. :':\"'=:\" -.::-  .. :- ! .. -  . ~  . ;- -}~- ;..,,f.,.   _; ,  ~ capj ~ ;~~~~~c.AA,:;::,.:~ ~:...: Y.anance ;. ALTLRN 4 2 66.7% 36.0% CENTRAL 24 42 36.4% 5.7% CLOVERDALE 5 24 17.2% -13.4% DUNBAR 10 20 33.3% 2.6% FAIR 13 23 36.1% 5.4% FOREST HEIGHTS 12 19 38.7% 8.0% HALL 10 34 22.7% -8.0% HENDERSON 10 26 27.8% -2.9% MABELVALE 5 21 19.2% -11.5% MANNM/S 10 26 27.8% -2.9% MCCLELLAN 12 24 33.3% 2.6% PARK.VIEW 10 28 26.3% -4.4% PULASKI HEIGHTS 7 29 19.4% -11.2% SOUIBWEST 15 14 51.7% 21.0% 95 Total 147 332 30.7% Secondary Teachers - 1996 s~il~l~l~fillE1~ ~JH~tt~~,r.:i ~~~pt~~!~: ALT LRN ' 4 2 66.7% 33.1% CENTRAL 23 41 35.9% 2.4% CLOVERDALE 11 20 35.5% 2.0% DUNBAR 15 18 45.5% 11.9% FAIR 15 25 37.5% 4.0% FOREST HEIGHTS 12 20 37.5% 4.0% HALL 10 36 21.7% -11.8% HENDERSON 19 20 48.7% 15.2% MABELVALE 5 22 18.5% -15.0% MANNM/S 12 25 32.4% -1.1% MCCLELLAN 10 32 23.8% -9.7% PARK.VIEW 12 29 29.3% -4.3% PULASKI HEIGHTS 6 32 15.8% -17.7% SOUTHWEST 15 13 53.6% 20.0% 96 Total 169 335 33 .5% Secondary Teachers - 1997  ~=ifl ~\"I- m11me'rc'efiliifff ' ..- .. ~Rercenta e, . CENTRAL 24 44 35.3% .4% CLOVERDALE 12 19 38.7% 3.8% DUNBAR 14 21 40.0% 5.1% FAIR 14 20 41.2% 6.3% FOREST HEIGHTS 11 18 37.9% 3.1% HALL 11 33 25.0% -9.9% HEDERSON 17 19 47.2% 12.4% MABELVALE 5 20 20.0% -14.9% MANNM/S 12 25 32.4% -2.4% MCCLELLAN 13 30 30.2% -4.6% PARK.VIEW 14 28 33.3% -1.5% PULASKI HEIGHTS 4 35 10.3% -24.6% SOUTHWEST 19 10 65.5% 30.6% 97 Total 174 325 34.9% Secondary Teachers - 1998 . :.:f.i~:~~~~17:(f-;~.;BpiJ .~ --~~:n . caira ' ~- ' ~caw an\"'---.; ~ercefftre.~canl ~ :r.ercen~ge.:. ' Sclioolf:f:~,:t~\".. .~ _,; , aniei ~~-~ ~ :.,.-.:~} ~:~~,~J.;: ~- ; --:~~4t.lm.;i -~-~~~- i~~~.~ ;:i;. ~3:~e;;, ALTLRN ' 2 5 28.6% -7.4% CENTRAL 27 48 36:0% .0% CLOVERDALE 13 19 40.6% 4.6% DUNBAR 17 22 43 .6% 7.6% FAIR 11 23 32.4% -3 .6% FOREST HEIGHTS 14 17 45 .2% 9.2% HALL 11 33 25.0% -11.0% HENDERSON 16 19 45 .7% 9.7% MABELVALE 4 21 16.0% -20.0% MANN MIS 15 23 39.5% 3.5% MCCLELLAN 14 29 32.6% -3.4% PARK.VIEW 16 29 35.6% -.4% PULASKI HEIGHTS 6 31 16.2% -19.8% SOUTHWEST 19 10 65.5% 29.5% 98 Total 185 329 36.0% Central Office Administrators - 1993 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 4 2 Departmental Directors 5 12 93 Total 9 15 Central Office Administrators - 1994 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 3 2 Departmental Directors 5 13 94 Total 9 IS Central Office Administrators - 1995 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 3 3 Departmental Directors 6 14 95 Total 10 17 Central Office Administrators - 1996 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 2 3 Departm,ental Directors 5 13 96 Total 8 16 Central Office Administrators - 1997 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 2 2 Departmental Directors 4 12 97 Total 6 IS 0.0% 66.7% 29.4% 37.5% 100.0% 60.0% 27.8% 37.5% 100.0% 50.0% 30.0% 37.0% 100.0% 40.0% 27.8% 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 28.6% ~ PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT c,., Central Office Administrators - 1998 Superintendent 0 2 0.0% Assistant Superintendent 2 2 50.0% Departmental Directors 4 10 28.6% 98 Total 6 14 30.0% Principals and Assistant Prlnlclpals -1993 Principals and Assistant Prlnlclpals - 1994 s 8 18 16 52.9% S2 47 S2.So/o Principals and Assistant Priniclpals - 1995 Principals and Assistant Prinlclpals - 1996 r--- -- - ; - :~ . ~:.::-,..1- 11: -11 -~\\:::;:t~: ~~ l~-;''._~::'.i~~i~~;:f.:i!: l L-.ac ~ :-~--~t~(_I~ . - - ~r ~'l.,.t.~~l:~:..!! Elementarv Princioals 17 18 48.6% Elementary Assistant Principals II s 68.8% Secondary Principals 8 6 57.1 o/o Secondary Assistant Principals 20 13 60.6% 96 Total S6 42 53.1 o/o Principals and Assistant Prinicipals - 1997 Secondary Ass 20 16 55.6% 97 Total 57 44 56.4% Principals and Assistant Priniclpals - 1998 11 5 s 9 5 64.3% s 20 16 55 .6% - 98 Total S6 4S 55.4% ARTICLE XV TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS A. The procedure outlined below shall be followed in making teaching assignments: 1. Teaching assignments shall be based upon training, experience, competence, seniority, tenure, and such other factors as would indicate success in the position to be filled. 2. To assure that students are taught by teachers working within their areas of competence, teachers shall not be assigned, except temporarily and for good cause, outside the scope of their teaching certificates of their major or minor field of study. Teachers assigned outside their major or minor fields shall not be penalized on the salary schedule in any way. When requested, the Director of Personnel will make available to the Association a list of teachers assigned outside their major or minor fields.  3. All teaching assignments will be made by the principal or his/her superiors after the following steps are taken: a. Each year all teachers will submit in writing their personal preference for grade level, group and subject assignments, and such preference shall be a factor in making assignments. b. Department Coordinators will be consulted before assignments are made in their departments. 4. Secondary teachers shall not be required to teach more than two (2) subject matter areas with no more than two (2) preparations involved. Basic, regular, and enriched classes shall be considered separate preparations. Exceptions will only be made when it would otherwise be impossible to enroll all students who have registered for a required course. Teachers assigned more than two (2) preparations will be so notified as soon as possible and in no case later than three (3) weeks before the teach ing assignment is to commence. No teacher shall be assigned more than three (3) preparations under any circumstances. 5. Schedules of teachers who are assigned to more than one (I) school shall be arranged so that such teachers shall not be required to engage in an unreasonable amount of interschool travel. 6. The principal shall or should consult with the Building Coordinating Committee in regard to the tentative master schedule for the following year, and all teachers will be given an opportunity to discuss their tentative assignments with the principal if they so request. B. The following procedure shall be used for notifying teachers of their assignments: 1. Returning teachers shall be given written notice of their tentative grade levei, grouping, subject area assignments, building assignments, and room assignments by the end of the current school year. Newly elected teachers shall be given such notic "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1685","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court jurisdiction","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)","Joshua Intervenors"],"dc_date":["1997-12-02"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School districts","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court jurisdiction"],"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/1685"],"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":["21 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.  FILE6 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS 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. DEC 4 1gg7 [)gC O 2 1997 DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. UJ:il~Of INTERVENORS ~ ION MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the PCSSD Petition for Release From Federal court Jurisdiction A. Introduction The PCSSD has moved for a declaration of \"unitary status\" and the system's \"release from further court supervision.\" Petit., October 14, 1997, at 1. Subsequent to the filing of the motion,  _this court scheduled the matter for a hearing beginning on March 23, 1998. This memorandum discusses the standards applicable to the PCSSD motion and the showings made by the PCSSD regarding various elements of the system. In brief, the PCSSD errs with regard to the governing standards; moreover, if the district's presentation during the hearing mirrors the one made in the petition, the PCSSD will not be entitled to the relief sought. Indeed, the deficiencies of the Petition are such that it is appropriate to rescind the notice of a hearing and to deny the motion as was done in the case of a more detailed motion for termination of jurisdiction filed by the LRSD. See Mem. Opin. and 1 Order, Sept. 23, 1996, at 9-12. Consideration and resolution of the petition requires the parties and the court to address at least four areas: first, there is a need to designate the standards which identify both the areas of the system's operation to be evaluated and the criteria for the evaluations; second, there is a need to identify the extent (or degree) of compliance to be required in each area before jurisdiction is relinquished; third, there is a need to identify the party having the burden of proof to establish the requisite degree of compliance (or noncompliance); and fourth, there is a need to apply the foregoing principles. Intervenors' response addresses each area. A 14-page Attachment to this memorandum quotes many key elements of the desegregation plan of the PCSSD (April 1992) and the Interdistrict Plan {April 1992). These plans, we argue, rather than the so-called Green factors, as such, must be the focal point in the resolution of the PCSSD motion. To facilitate analysis of the issues presented by the petition, the Attachment clusters the provisions of the two plans by topic, rather than simply by page number. The Attachment is cited throughout this memorandum. The Joshua Intervenors argue below that the PCSSD has the burden of establishing a basis for the termination of supervision 2 in each area. However, ,intervenors do plan to undertake extensive discovery regarding compliance with the plans in the PCSSD. B. The Governing standards (1.) The Terms of the Plans Provide the Substantive standards for Evaluating the operation of the Pesso The PCCSD focuses upon the six areas mentioned by the supreme Court in Green v, county School Board, 391 u.s. 430, 435 (1968). See, for example, Petition at 4-5;  7-34. 1 In contrast, there is but a single, general reference to the Interdistrict Plan (Petit. at 7) and almost all of the small number of references to the 1992 PCSSD desegregation plan are in the form of terse assertions, without page citations. Ig. at 7, 9, 31, 33- 37; but see .ig. at 11 (single reference to page number in the plan). The citations to the significant provisions of the 1992 - PCSSD and Interdistrict Plans are obviously incomplete, as a reading of the Attachment shows. Moreover, the PCSSD approach is out of focus. Scores of rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and this court establish that the settlement plans, approved by this court by Order of May 1, 1992, must be the focal point in resolving the motion. 2 Intervenors next cite 1 In Green, the Supreme Court wrote in part: \"Racial identification of the system's schools was complete, extending not just to the composition of student bodies at the two schools but to every facet of school operations -- faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities\" (at 435). 2 Indeed, the PCSSD recognizes this, in effect, by the very last part of its brief requesting this court to retain jurisdiction until \"enforcement of the Settlement Agreement\" is complete. Petit. at 44 n.5. See also LRSP y. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 1996) (in appeal involving state payments 3 examples evidencing this aspect of \"the law of the case.\" In the oft-cited December 1990 opinion, the Court of Appeals directed this court to approve the \"settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties.\" LRSP v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376. The court stated that it was \"important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to ... \" (.i.g. at 1386) and alluded, similarly, to the parties' \"scrupulously and diligently carry[ing] out the settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... 11 .Ig. at 1394. Lastly, the court \"instructed\" this court \"to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, [and] to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement .... \" .Ig. at 1394, para. 8; emphasis added. The appellate court in 1991 set forth standards governing modifications to the settlement documents. It stated that \"[t]he 1989 settlement ... should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case.\" Appeal of Little Rock school District, 949 F.2d 253, 255; emphasis added. The court wrote that \"[t]he desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed.\" I.g. at 256. Lastly, the court identified \"crucial\" \"elements of the 1989 plan\" \"with respect to which no retreat should be approved.\" .Ig. These include \"the agreed effort for workers' compensation claims and other matters, .court twice notes that PCSSD and LRSD .base their arguments on the terms of the Settlement Agreement). 4 to eliminate achievemel'}t disparity between the races\" and \"appropriate involvement of parents.\" .Ig. 3 Other pertinent guidance appears in the Court of Appeals' opinion concerning the PCSSD teacher strike issue. There, the court wrote that \"[t]he job of [this court] is to enforce the settlement agreement.\" Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 954. The court added: \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" .Ig. at 955. Two examples from this court's many rulings support the Joshua Intervenors' contention that the court-approved settlement documents provide, with regard to substantive terms, the \"benchmark [at this stage] of this case.\" As previously noted, this court in a lengthy May, 1992 order, containing no reference to Green, approved the various desegregation plans, as modified.' The court's understanding of the significance of the plan provisions emerges from the following excerpt from that ruling. Special Education (PCSSD) .... While the Court approves the addition of new language regarding the relationship between social 3 It is noteworthy that the seven elements as set forth by the court are a combination of activities designed to attain an objective (or goal) and objectives\\goals. 'This action rendered the defendants subject to the possibility of a contempt sanction for the violation of a plan provision containing specific obligations. See Transcript of hearing of July 6, 1995, at 176-77 (court refers to then pending hearing on intervenors' motion to hold officials of the LRSD in contempt for plan violations). 5 deprivation and disproportionality in special education, the original language regarding long-range goals must remain in order for the Court to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing achievement disparity between the races and reducing over representation of black students in special education classes. [Order, 5-1-92 at 7-8] This court's decision of September 23, 1996, denying a similar motion of the LRSD \"to end federal court jurisdiction,\" is also noteworthy. The court first addressed an LRSD contention that its commitment to implement \"the desegregation plan\" was limited to a six year period, assuming adequate implementation. The court rejected this contention, noting that \"[t]he LRSD ... cites no provision that its duty to comply with the settlement plans ends after six years, and the Court cannot find such a provision in the settlement plans. 11 At 11.; emphasis added. This court then quoted the portion of the decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District setting forth the \"crucial\" elements of the settlements, 949 F.2d at 256, and described the predicate for any termination of federal court jurisdiction, as follows. The LRSD asserts in its pleadings that it has substantially complied with its desegregation goals. In order to end federal court jurisdiction, the LRSD must provide evidence that it has substantially complied with the aforementioned elements insofar as they obligate the LRSD. Reports of ODM and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan. Instead of presenting substantial evidence of its compliance with its goals as set forth in the plan, the LRSD submits arguments that it has achieved unitary status because data from the LRSD compares favorably with data from other districts which have been declared unitary. The Court would be inclined to .agree with the LRSD with respect to many of these arguments if the LRSD were not contractually bound by the plan which it voluntarily adopted. 6 The Court has encouraged the parties to consider modifying those parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. The court has provided the parties with the testimony of experts to assist in the modification process. Instead, the LRSD has used the testimony of these experts to ask the court to end court jurisdiction without first proceeding with plan modifications. The Court cannot so easily relieve the district of its contractual obligations, [At 11-12; emphasis added] These comments establish in this very context the centrality of the plan provisions to which the PCSSD voluntarily agreed. Three other arguments made by the PCSSD warrant responses. The PCSSD seems to argue that at this advanced stage of the remedial phase of the case, the parties and the court can return to the PCSSD's view of the scope of the liability findings as set forth by the Court of Appeals prior to the parties voluntarily agreements. Petit. at 2-3, 6-7. As intervenors have shown, this approach involves a head on collision with much law of the case at this and the appellate level. This court, we respectfully suggest, can not set aside the many rulings of the court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, necessary to adopt this approach. The PCSSD seems to argue that the fact that the Delaware case involved eight particular \"ancillary factors\" means that those factors are properly a focal point in this case. Petit. at 34. This approach is unsound. Relief regarding those factors was identified as necessary, and ordered, to support the desegregation remedy in the particular circumstances of that case. coalition to save our Children Y, Board of Education, 90 F.3d 752, 757, 769 (3rd cir. 1996). This case has its own  7 ,. decrees, entered largely by consent. The decisions of the court of appeals and this court establish, in accord with the general rule, that these decrees, in this case, provide the \"benchmark\" for measuring compliance by the officers and agents of the PCSSD. Finally, intervenors note other efforts to elevate substantive standards employed in other cases above the specific remedial steps and goals agreed to by the PCSSD in this litigation. Petit. at 1, 25, 31, 35-36, 38-41. However, none of these other cases involved a consent decree, much less one with the terms extant in this litigation. 2. The Degree of Compliance to Be Required in Each Area Prior to the court's Relinquishing Jurisdiction a. The Appropriate source of Legal Principles The parties, as has been noted, agreed in the PCSSD and - Interdistrict Plans to terms governing the operation of many aspects of the educational program afforded in the PCSSD. the parties' agreement also allowed \"[this court] to retain jurisdiction to oversee ... [the] implementation (of the agreements].\" LRSD, supra, 921 F.2d at 1390. The parties' agreements did not, however, address the standards and procedures for the termination of court jurisdiction in any particular area, including the standards delineating the degree or extent of compliance to be required in an area prior to the termination of jurisdiction. As to these matters not addressed in the agreements, it is the position of the Joshua Intervenors that the standards normally govern~ng the termination of jurisdiction in a particular area, described below, are applicable. 8 In the first place, there is no reason to believe that the plans provided for endless court jurisdiction. The system, as shown by the current motion, would not desire such jurisdiction. More significantly, by 1989 the courts had decided that perpetual jurisdiction would be inappropriate. For example, in Freeman v . Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 132-33 (1992), the court described the 1976 decision in Pasadena city Board of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424. It noted the rationale of Spangler that a federal court in a school desegregation case has the discretion to order an incremental or partial withdrawal of its supervision and control. In resolving the teacher strike issue, the Court of Appeals identified the sources of law applicable in this case. Knight. supra, 112 F.3d at 954. The court referred to the settlement agreement, \"reasonable implication therefrom,\" and \"other applicable law.\" ,lg. Each of the latter sources of law supports the approach taken by intervenors. As the parties agreed to continued jurisdiction of the district court in traditional terms, 5 it is reasonable, absent explicit terms, to imply traditional terms to govern the court's exercise of that jurisdiction, when addressing the matter of termination of jurisdiction. With the parties silent on the matter, it seems eminently reasonable to draw upon the body of law normally utilized by courts considering the termination of jurisdiction, 5 compare Brown y. Board of Education, 349 u.s. 294, 299-301 (1955) with LRSD. supra, 921 F.2d at 1390. 9 namely, \"other applicable law.\"6 Two other factors buttress this approach. First, when the parties addressed the end of court supervision in some areas, they cited the principles set forth in Freeman y, Pitts. supra, a decision focusing on the termination of jurisdiction. See \"Stipulation for Order,\" Feb. 9, 1996. Second, when dealing with matters outside the substantive terms of t he agreements, the Court of Appeals has described this court's authority in traditional terms. LRSD y, PCSSD. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394, paras. 8., 9.; Appeal of LRSD. supra, 949 F.2d at 257 (nature of continuing jurisdiction), .ig. at 258 (standard for considering modifications). 7 6 These approaches reach the same result in different ways. In the first instance, intervenors suggest that the traditional concepts be viewed, by implication, as part of the agreement. In the second approach, intervenors argue, in effect, that the agreements are supreme as far as they go, with this court, which retains jurisdiction, supplementing the agreements, in areas not addressed, by reference to the traditional principles. See Restatement of contracts. second. sec. 204 (\"Supplying an omitted Essential Term\") (\"When the parties to a bargain sufficiently defined to be a contract have not agreed with respect to a term which is essential to a determination of their rights and duties, a term which is reasonable in the circumstances is supplied by the court.\") 7 See also LRSP y, PCSSP, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995) (traditional standard employed in considering modification of LRSD plan); LRSP Y, Arkansas, Slip Opin., Oct. 14, 1997, at 3-5 (propriety of reliance on a federal statute, 42 u.s.c. Sec. 1988, as to the availability of 'a fee award, an area like this one, not addressed in the agreements between the PCSSD and other parties). 10 b. The standard for Evaluating the Degree of compliance The Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating the extent of compliance in a school district seeking release from court jurisdiction in Freeman v, Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 134-35. The Court wrote, in part (emphasis added): .... Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion of the court in ordering partial withdrawal are the following: whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; .. [J  'The District court should address itself to whether the Board [hasJ complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was entered. and whether the vestiges of past discrimination [have] been eliminated to the extent practicable.' Board of Educ, of Oklahoma city v. Dowell, 498 U.S. ----(1991). see also Jenkins v, Missouri, 122 F.3d 588, 595-96 (8th cir. 1997) (quoting the foregoing portion of the Freeman decision); ,id. at 599 (\"As to the facilities factor, the district court found that certain court-ordered renovations remain to be completed. 959 F.Supp. at 1168. The district court did not err in requiring the terms of the court's decree to be completely fulfilled before relinquishing the ability to enforce compliance with the decree.\"); Pasadena city Board of Education y. Spangler. supra, 4271J.S. at 436, emphasis added (alluding to \"dispute as to the [district's] compliance with those portions of the plan specifying procedures for hiring and promoting teachers and administrators\"). The Joshua Intervenors relate these standards to the motion as follows. on the issue of degree of compliance, scrutiny must be given to two matters in each area addressed by the plans. 11 These are whether the ~CSSD has fully implemented, absent impossibility or the like, the various activities which it pledged to carry out to achieve objectives in that area .a.rul whether the configuration or make-up of students or staff, or the other target of the remedies, in that area, evidences achievement of the goals or objectives of the plans to the extent practicable. 3. The Burden of Proof Regarding Each Area In the Plans The matter of which party has the burden of proof regarding the areas of the system as to which the termination of court supervision is sought is another area not addressed by the parties' agreements. Based upon the same analysis, intervenors contend that the normal standards governing burden of proof in this phase of a school desegregation case apply. Under these standards, we submit, the PCSSD has the burden of proof to establish full compliance with the various steps set forth in the plans and to show that the plan goals have been fulfilled to the extent practicable. The general rule is that a school district has the burden of establishing the predicate for the termination of court jurisdiction in one or more areas of the case. Freeman v. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 137 (1992); 9 see also Wedo not suggest that these areas be viewed in isolation. The status of the activities is most important where the configuration of students or staff, as relevant, continues to reflect a racial pattern. '\"The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation.\" 12 United States Y, Fordice, 120 L.Ed.2d 575, 599 (1992) (higher education). 10 More generally, assignment of this burden to LRSD is consistent with the standards for allocation of the burden of proof set forth by the supreme Court in Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 208-10 (1973). In Keyes, a school desegregation case in which segregation had not been required or permitted by state law, the Court identified instances in which Denver school authorities had the burden of proof. For example, proof of intentionally segregative actions in a substantial part of the system was held to establish a prima facie case that actions having a segregative effect in other parts of the system were also motivated by race. See 413 U.S. at 208-09. 11 The Court explained the basis for this rule as follows: \"This burden-shifting principle is not new or novel. There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, 'is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.' 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence 2486, at 275 (3d Ed 1940).\" See 413 U.S. at 209. -The court then cited several situations in which considerations of \"policy and fairness\" had 10 \"Brown and its progeny, however, established that the burden of proof falls on the State, and not the aggrieved plaintiffs, to establish that it has dismantled its prior de jure segregated system. Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300. \" 11 \"In that circumstance, it is both fair and reasonable to require that the school authorities bear the burden of showing that their actions as to other segregated schools within the system were not also motivated by segregative intent.\" See 413 U.S. at 209. 13 been held to support a requirement that school authorities explain actions or conditions. See 413 U.S. at 209-10. Considerations of \"policy and fairness\" warrant allocating to PCSSD the burden of showing compliance with the terms of the settlement before the termination of the court's jurisdiction. The school district obviously has superior access to personnel and data, as well as greater resources, in. terms of personnel, to compile materials. The district's counsel, through its highest administrators, can request the lead personnel in each area to compile data and materials, if any there be, designed to show that the specified remedial steps have been undertaken and that goals have been attained to the extent practicable. This court seemingly adopted this approach when ruling on the earlier LRSD motion. It referred to the LRSD \"provid[ing] evidence that it has substantially complied and Order, May 1, 1992, at 11.  11 Mem. Opin. The PCCSD acknowledges having the burden of proof on the so-called Green factors. Petit. at 37. However, based upon its reading of the decision in the Delaware case, coalition to Saye Our Children. supra, the PCSSD argues that the burden of proof rests with the Joshua Intervenors as to any other areas where the relinquishment of jurisdiction is opposed. Petit. at 37-38. This argument is based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Delaware decision and again ignores the content of the courtapproved agreements in this case. The opinion in the coalition case discusses three areas of 14 district operations. These are the areas covered by the so-called Green factors (90 F.3d at 761-69, 776); eight so-called \"ancillary factors, as to which a \"1978 order of [the] court required the implementation of eight specific programs ancillary to the 9-3 pupil assignment plan\" (at 769-76); and \"certain performance disparities\" in the areas of achievement, special education and dropout rates, neither among the Green factors, nor covered \"in the ancillary relief order ... \".Ig. at 776. With regard to burden of proof as to termination of court supervision, the appellate court wrote: \"We emphasize that here we are not discussing the burden of proving compliance with the Green factors or the 1978 Order, as to which the school districts acknowledge bearing the evidentiary burden. Our discussion here, and our allocation of the burden of proof to [the Coalition] is limited to the issue of proving that the identified performance disparities are vestiges of de jure segregation.\" Ig. Thus, in the Coalition case, the court allocated the burden of proof to the plaintiffs only in areas not covered by a court order. Here, in contrast, the Joshua Intervenors' concerns, in their entirety, including as to achievement and special education, involve activities addressed in detail in the agreements, which the district has been ordered to implement, by reason of this court's approval of the plans. In sum, the Coalition decision is supportive of the intervenors' approach regarding burden of proof. 15 1 ' I i :1 c. Application of the Governing Standards to the Areas Addressed by the Plans, Including but Not Limited to Those Addressed in the Pesso Petition The Joshua Intervenors next discuss the various areas of the operation of the PCSSD which are addressed in the Petition. In keeping with the controlling legal standards, intervenors focus upon the specific activities which the PCSSD promised to undertake in the agreements, as well as th.e stated goals (objectives). Comments are made about the statistics presented (or not presented) in some instances. 12 Lastly, as appropriate, intervenors note distinguishing factors regarding the decisions cited by the PCSSD. 1. The Assignment of students. Including within Schools The PCSSD submits data on student enrollment, by school, - which is impressive, when considered in isolation. However, the system's showing in this area is incomplete for several reasons. 13 First. The petition is silent as to the plans of the PCSSD regarding student assignment, if supervision in this area is ended. One basis for jurisdiction to continue in an area is when this \"is necessary or practicable to achieve compliance with the 12 The PCSSD approach regarding statistical data varies. There is at times data by school; at times aggregated data, not showing the pattern by school; and at times no data. 13 Intervenors note ODM's conclusion, based upon its interpretation of the agreement, that in 1996-97, eight elementary schools and two secondary schools in the PCSSD \"[fell] outside the target for racial balance.\" see 1996-97 Erollment and Racial Balance in the LRSD and the PCSSD, ODM, Dec. 18, 1996, at 13, 14. 16 decree in other facets of the school system; -\" Freeman v. Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 135. Based upon the content of the plans, intervenors raise concerns infra about access to programs and the quality of school facilities available to class members. Intervenors and the court need to be informed about PCSSD's future plans for student assignment to know how they interact with these, and possibly other areas. 14 Second. The total failure of the petition to discuss the topic of the assignment of class members within schools is a major shortcoming. This issue is not the subject of either text, or statistics. In its 1990 decision, the Court of Appeals alluded to comments made by the intervenors' lead counsel, as follows: \"As one of the counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wisely remarked - during the oral argument, it is important which schools students attend, but it is also important what kind of education they receive after they get there. LRSD. supra, 921 F.2d at 1385. The PCSSD desegregation plan contains considerable content regarding assignment within schools. It addresses \"classroom racial balance\"; \"ability grouping,\" including its possible elimination; talented and gifted programs, including at the 14 In the Interdistrict Plan, the PCSSD agreed to cooperative efforts with the LRSD with regard to interdistrict schools (in both districts) and magnet schools (in the LRSD). Attach. at 11. The case file shows that the LRSD is not seeking the termination of jurisdiction at this time. The court and the intervenors need to know the PCSSD's future plans regarding the magnet and interdistrict schools, in particular, to assess the impact on the LRSD plan. The fact that three school districts joined in agreements may ~ead to the need to craft some special rules at the time when the limiting of the court's jurisdiction is proposed. 17 secondary level; \"honors and advanced placement courses\"; and \"advanced core curriculum courses.\" Attach. at 11-14. The plans provide for the gathering of data, the identification of any problems, and the crafting of solutions, if need be. Attach. at 6 I 12  We do not suggest that the PCSSD must provide a novel-length explanation of its implementation of the plan and the current configuration in each of these areas. However, to meet its burden, the PCSSD should be able to provide some statistical data, by school and race, as well as evidence of its carrying out of the specified activities. Citations to documents generated over time would often allow verification of the assertions made, if verification is possible. Failing such an approach in this and other areas, there is no guarantee that the plan provisions have been more than simply verbiage. 2. Transportation The resolution of this area must await resolution of the student assignment area. In the absence of information about future plans as to assignment to schools and data about access to enriched programs, one must speculate to address this area. 3. Personnel. Including Qualifications The Petition sets forth data regarding three areas. These are \"certified secondary staffing\" (by school but without a breakdown by category), \"principals and assistant principals\" (aggregate data), and \"central office.\" At 17-30. While the results cited are clear1y  positive in nature, they do not in view 18 . - of the full sweep of the commitments undertaken (Attachment at 9-10) warrant the relinquishment of jurisdiction. The existence of these commitments also distinguishes this case from others to which the PCSSD alludes. Petit. at 25. The PCSSD pledged that \"[a]enrollment levels of the organization will reflect a desegregated staff .... 11 Attach. at 9. The shortcomings in the PCSSD presentation are as follows: First. Data for certified staff should be provided by category, by school, so that it is possible to determine the extent to which black and white pupils are exposed to black faculty members, the staff members with whom students spend the majority of the school day. Second. The plan provides that the PCSSD \"shall staff each school with at least one minority administrator  11 Attach. at 10. The petition identifies, for 1996-97, 33 black principals and assistant principals and 37 schools. At 11-13, 27. Therefore, there is a need for a chart showing the number of administrators by school and by race to allow evaluation of the fulfillment of this objective. Third. The plan pledged efforts to desegregate several categories of staff, for which no data is now provided. These are \"support staff\"; the \"Special Education Department\"; \"facilitator\" in the Talented and Gifted Program; and \"coaches and band directors.\" Attach. at 9-10. Inclusion is important in each of these areas. For example, the support staff are often the first staff members to greet parents. Their make-up, therefore, 19 . - seems related to the central goal of promoting parental involvement. Data for these areas should allow a determination of whether there has been any progress over time. Fourth. The PCSSD made promises regarding staff qualifications, generally, and, in schools offering the compensatory program. The latter pledges were more specific. Attach. at 10. This area, an important one_ in a plan emphasizing educational quality and the narrowing of the achievement gap, is ignored. 4. co-curricular and Extracurricular Activities The PCSSD voluntarily agreed to more than three pages of provisions concerning these areas. Plan at 68-69, 76-77; ID Plan at 6; see also Attach. at 4-5. Under the law of the case, - citation to decisions dealing with systems without such commitments does not suffice to establish a basis for termination of the court's role. Intervenors note the following specific shortcomings in the presentation on this topic: First. The PCSSD has yet to submit the promised supplementation in the \"co-curricular\" realm. Petit. at 33. As the plan provides for a goal for each school (Attach. at 4), the data should be school-based. The providing of data for more than one year, as was done in the case of certified staff, will be necessary to permit a determination of whether any progress has been made over time. Should the data show \"minority underrepresentation\" in the past, the PCSSD should provide 20 ,. evidence that the affirmative steps promised by the plan (Attac "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1683","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD's amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, ODM, ''Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County'', and Joshua Intervenors notices of deposition for receivership of Southwest Junior High School","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":["1997-12"],"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.)","Lawyers","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","Education and state","School integration","School districts","School administrators","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD's amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, ODM, ''Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County'', and Joshua Intervenors notices of deposition for receivership of Southwest Junior High School"],"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/1683"],"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":["106 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion; District Court, three orders; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; District Court, order; District Court, seven notices of deposition; District Court, notice to take deposition upon oral examination; District Court, memorandum of Joshua intervenors in support of their emergency motion concerning attorneys' fees; District Court, response to motion to quash deposition; Court of Appeals decision 96-2047; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, motion to supplement record; Court of Appeals, supplemental appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al.; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County''; District Court, order; District Court, joint motion for extension of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION f;lED U.S. DISTRICT COURT ':A STF.RN DISTRl(:T ARKANSAS 1' 0-[~\"-' :..',. /J\" 1i 997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK 3v: __.. - }\u003eL--A-l'ld'f'ffi'~  ..,n .. .u~~LERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an order directing the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to provide for the record a listing of all monitoring reports which it has issued during the past fifteen months, or is in the process of issuing ( with the expected date of such report) involving the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. This motion is made because: a) there have been no monitoring reports issued by ODM and received by the Joshua lntervenors involving these two school districts during the period that the Court has granted leave to the Little Rock School District to utilize the ODM in a nonmonitoring, advisory capacity; and, b) because it is necessary to have the benefit of such monitoring reports by the ODM in aid of Joshua's presentation regarding the anticipated evidentiary presentation of the PCSSD during the hearing before the court scheduled for March 23, 1998. The Joshua Intervenors observe that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit directed the creation of ODM and set forth the expectation that monitoring would be vigorous, continuous, purposeful and plan directed to enable contemplated implementation of the Settlement Agreement. The authority for this motion is the Eighth Circuit's several Opinions directing monitoring and - enforcement of the settlement plans. This motion is being made also because there is a general impression among some members of the Joshua class that the Court monitoring is not being directed toward protecting the interests of the class and is being directed toward promoting minimum compliance or developing excuse for noncompliance of, by and from the districts with the Court approved plans. There is no prejudice to any party by the requested relief Respectfully submitted, By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 /J:k?l k. ~ Jo ~er, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of reco:g~ placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this - day of December, 1997. 9:ftl~~ John W. Walker IN THE UNITED STATES 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, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR'\u003cANSAS DEC O 5 1997 Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors requesting that this Court direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (uODM\") to provide for the record a listing of all - monitoring reports which it has issued during the past fifteen months or is in the process of issuing in regard to the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. 1 Whenever ODM issues a monitoring report, it has been this Court's practice to make that report a part of the record in this case. However, this Court will grant the Joshua Intervenors ' current request. By copy of this Order, ODM is hereby directed to provide for the record a listing of all monitoring reports that it has issued during the past fifteen months or is in the process of issuing. 11\\__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5= day of December 1997. 1 Docke! No. 3081. rHIS DOCUME!NT ENTERED ON DOCK\u0026 SHEET IN OOUPUAHCE WITH AUL~ 71(8) FRCP ~ ,'UD'Y1 IY_~_ ct:: __ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * FILED U.S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR'\u003cANSAS DEC O 5 1997 JA~ES W. iMcCO~ACK, CLERK vs. * * * * * * * * * * * By._ \\ '~ I\\ 7_, \\I\\, '\" No. LR-C-82-866 oeP CLERX PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., In tervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting that this Court convene a hearing involving the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), and Joshua in order to review the circumstances said to exist at Southwest Junior High School. 1 Joshua requests that this Court, upon appropriate findings, determine that it is necessary to have the school placed in receivership or in the hands of a specially designated authority other than the present principal of the school. The time for filing a response to this motion has passed, and the LRSD has not filed a response. This motion was filed during the time in which the Court suspended monitoring of the LRSD in order to allow the LRSD to develop proposed modifications to the desegregation plan. By requesting that this Court place Southwest Junior High School in receivership, Joshua has requested a drastic, equitable remedy. Throughout the history of this case, this Court has never placed a school into receivership. After reviewing Joshua's motion and brief in support, 1 Docket No. 3038. 08 this Court concludes that the facts as presented by Joshua do not justify the appointment of a receiver to take over the operations of the school. Therefore, Joshua's motion is denied. ft IT IS SO ORDERED THIS --!:\u003e- \"-day of December 1997. rHtS OOCUM8'T ENTERED ON OOCt(\u0026l SHEET IN OC'AIPU~ WITH RULE  AN00R 79(a) FRCP JN lHXi!J..7_ av _vr-___ _ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES 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, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Iritervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl(ANSAS DEC O 5 1997 By previous Order and in response to a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors, this Court directed the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") to provide for the record a listing of all monitoring reports that it has issued during the past fifteen months or is in the process of issuing. Attached to this Order is a letter this Court received from ODM in response to the Court's request. The Clerk is directed to file this Order and the attached letter, thereby making the letter a part of the record in this case. _?\\..__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ~ ') aay of December 1997. rntS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COAAf\u003eUANCE WITH RULE 56 ANOIOR 79(a) FRCP ON /,_:]. ,/S/-91 BY _,lt ___ _ 084 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas - Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 5, 1997 Judge Susan Webber Wright U. S District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright : 201 East Markham, Suite 51 0 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 I am happy to provide the requested list of the monitoring reports ODM has issued during the past 15 months, even though, as the Court has noted, those reports are already a matter of record. To the list of filed repons, I am pleased to add those which we are currently in the process of researching and writing, along with the approximate date of publication. The list attached by no means encompasses nor reflects the extensive activities and tremendous amount of work this office has done during the last 15 months. As you are aware, issuing monitoring reports is only one of the many ways in which ODM monitors and otherwise carries out the duties of this office. cki~ Ann S. Brown Enc. cc: All Counsel - ODM Monitoring Reports Issued Since July 1996 ~ Subject July 12, 1996 LRSD incentive schools July 31 , 1996 Elementary school facilities in the NLRSD December 18, 1996 Double funding of the LRSD incentive schools December 18, 1996 Enrollment and racial balance in the districts May 7, 1997 Budgets of the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCS SD June 4, 1997 LRSD incentive school extended year program Target Date December 1997 January 1998 January 1998 February 1998 February 1998 March 1998 March 1998 ODM Monitoring Reports In Progress SuQ.iect ADE's monitoring of the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD Enrollment and racial balance in the districts Student achievement in the PCSSD Secondary school facilities in the PCSSD Secondary staffing in the PCSSD Student discipline in the PCSSD Student participation in extracurricular activities in the PCSSD 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. RECEJlfED DEC S 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S REPLY TO ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S \"AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS The PCSSD for its reply to the ADE's response states: 1. First, the PCSSD agrees with the ADE conclusions set forth at paragraph 2 of its response dated December 2, 1997. Accordingly, in revised calculations which appear infra, the PCSSD has deducted 2.9 hours for Sam Jones and 1.5 hours for Angell Jones in respect of the petition for rehearing. 2. The PCSSD agrees in part with ADE' s contentions regarding time spent defending the appeal. In reviewing the time records submitted with the December 2, 1996 Affidavit, the PCSSD has identified the following time entries, all for Sam Jones, which relate to work on that appeal: .8 5/8/95 .8 6/21/95 .6 6/26/95 .5 8/4/95 .1 . 8/9/95 2.9 11/15/95 Reducing this total by 1/3 results in subtracting an additional 1.9 hours from Sam Jones. However, the PCSSD disagrees that any reduction should accompany the oral argument. The travel time to St. Louis and the argument itself were not affected by the fact that three issues as compared to two were involved in the appeal. 1 Accordingly, the PCSSD has not reduced the time spent travelling to and arguing before the Court of Appeals. 3. The PCSSD disagrees with the ADE's conclusions regarding the affidavit and supporting time records. Contrary to the State's assumption, most of the time was spent regarding the final review and editing of time records spanning three years. It is simply a fact that reviewing, separating and then reassembling time records limited to two or three subjects is a tedious and time consuming matter. Particularly since the PCSSD is submitting no time or claim for the most recent work done in preparing the amended petition, the Court should accept the summary set forth in paragraph 4 below. 4. Having made the additional deletions as described in paragraphs 1 and 2, the revised claim is as follows: Timekeeper M.S. Jones C.S. Hancock A. Jones _ B. Benjamin V. Bryant J.D. Thompson M.A. Gocke A. Haguewood L. Hudson D. Compton J.H. Sorn 1994 $13,824.00 $ $ 654.50 31. 50 $ 2,020.50 $ 65.00 $ 30.00 $ 32.50 $ 20.00 1995 $ 6,936.00 $ 132.00 $ 1,281.50 $ 735.00 $ 181.50 1996 $ 4,655.00 $ 4,263.00 $ 75.00 $ 104.50 $ 600.00 1The 2.9 hours reflected on November 15, 1995 was the entry for preparation for oral argument. Thus, the preparation time has already been reduced by one-third. SUBTOTAL $16,678.00 $ 9,266.00 $ 9,697.50 TOTAL FEES 1994-1996: $35,641.50 CONCLUSION For the reasons previously explained, and as supplemented herein, the PCSSD prays for a total fee award of $35,641.50 to which post-judgment interest at the current federal rate should attach. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ -,,,'--+-----'~.._ ____ _ M. Att 76060) for aski County District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 1 , 1997, 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 and Street 410 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 FILED U.S. OIST\"ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT A~'\u003cANSAS IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC O 8 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * :~ESJ . ~~A~ 2~K DEP CLERK-\u003c... Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVEP DEC 9 1897 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER By previous Order dated December 5, 1997, this Court denied a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting that this Court convene a hearing to review the circumstances said to exist at Southwest Junior High School and determine that it is necessary to place the school in receivership. 1 In that Order, this Court inadvertently indicated that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had failed to respond to the motion. For the record, this Court wishes to clarify that the LRSD did file a response in opposition to the motion. 2 After reviewing that response, this Court reaffirms its initial decision to deny the Joshua Intervenors' motion. I(_, IT IS SO ORDERED THIS g day of December 1997. 1 Docket No. 3083. 2 Docket No. 3044 and Docket No. 3045. A 71I / ,f '!\" ,y1 ;;1 Oi,. V l4h .lt';Jii: ONITEDST'A TES DISTRIC J OGE rHtS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET s+-IEET IN COMPLIANCE \"?'~::VLE 58 ANOt'OA 79(1) FACP ON lco/fa _y_ IY ...f..S ::-.._ __ ...., 085 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 DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS 01r'.r\" .\\\"\\i'i\": lu\"'C, DESEGREGAilON ,iOi'!110R\\NG PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Dr. Leslie Carnine, 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 for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to 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 Tuesday, December 16, 1997 @ 1:00 p.m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. ... . : CBRTIJICM'B QI SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of united States mail on this 10th day counsel of record. sent via 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. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Dr. Don Roberts, 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 for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to 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 Tuesday, December 16, 1997 @ 2:30 p.rn. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. CBRTifICATB or SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of United States mail on this 10th day counsel of record. via 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. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John w. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Margaret Gremillion, at the place and time identitied below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to 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 Wednesday, December 17, 1997@ 9:00 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. .. :- .;.... . .:.-':.-... ... .. ~ . ~  .  ~ ... ::. . ---.. . . f . v' ,' .. .  + CBRTilICATB or SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was sent via 4t United States mail on this 10th day De~ember, 1 97 to all counsel of record. 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. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John w. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Brady Gadberry, 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 for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to 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 Tuesday, December 17, 1997 @ 10:00 a.rn. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. cuiri;xcli'1i' :or' sERVIcB . . I do hereby state tha~ a'\" c~py of United states mail on this  10th .day of counsel of record.  via 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 DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Sadie Mitchell, 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 for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to 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 Tuesday, December 17, 1997 @ 11:00 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. '  A ... , -~.  CBRTIFICATB or SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of  the _foregoing was sent via United States mail on this 10th day 6 ecem r , . 997 counsel of record.   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. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Nancy Acre, 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 for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to 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 Wednesday, December 17, 1997@ 1:30 p . m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206.  .. ~. , ~::,,:l~J:C,..~V~ ~' ~ :'--~~~~t,'.::~}= ;n. ~ . ~ ~,~:\\.'-:I't.~~ . . ~: :- -~- .. . . . . ~' ,~ ~ -!'~\\.. ,.-.;.,;.t.1:  :,~~ . ..,.. '\\',~ ',,- ...  .  QBR'l'IJIQATI QP SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of United States_ mail oh this 10th day f counsel .. of record.   via 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 DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Dr. Richard Hurley, 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 for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to 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 Tuesday, December 17, 1997 @ 2:30 p.m. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. ... .. . ..,;,  .   .,.  .. \\   .,. t.,,  ~  .  \"\" : .,-,\\~. :..:.. ;1' .'i. . CBRTilICA'l'B or 'SBRVICI  ..?~t't~ {~~ ~,~I~i\u003e.4  I do hereby state that a copy of th~ foregoing was sent via United States mail on this 10th day  counsel of record. 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 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION F'l-~~~'!},ED . - q \\~. L . TO: John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 l\u003cl- 1 5 1997 Orr/CE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING This will notify you that on December 16, 1997, commencing at 9:30 a.m., at the office of FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Building, 400 W. Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas, the plaintiff in this case will take the deposition upon oral examination of Bonnie Brown or current Joshua class representative for the Little Rock School District before a duly qualified Court Reporter. Ms. Brown or current Joshua class representativ~ for the Little Rock School District is requested to bring to the deposition documents in- her possession pertaining to the position of the Joshua Intervenors with respect to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The deposition upon oral examination will be taken pursuant to and in accordance with Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure. You are invited to attend and cross- - examine. 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 By:-=:~ ChristopherHell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice To Take Deposition has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 10th day of December, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 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 - 2 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 --- 3 FILED U S DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~sTE.RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 2 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NO. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED DEC l 5 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAMES w. rpr9QfM1''r}.-f LrnK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENOR Memorandum of the Joshua Intervenors in Support of Their Emergency Motion Concerning Attorneys' Fees This memorandum supports the emergency motion of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the payment of attorneys' fees to the these intervenors by the LRSD. It is designed to supplement that motion. The motion draws upon the authority of the court to interpret the agreement of the parties, to modify the agreement of the parties in appropriate circumstances, and to provide for interim awards of attorneys' fees. The intervenors assume, for the purposes of the motion, the existence of the limitation on the intervenors' ablity to secure fee awards against the LRSD, found to exist by this court in September 1996. The motion seeks the recognition of an entitlement to fees on two grounds. First. Intervenors contend that their work regarding the LRSD's motion for the approval of a Revised Plan, which includes a request to relace and extinguish the current LRSD and Interdistrict Plans, is outside the terms of the agreement urged by the LRSD and found by the court. See 1 Motion, para. 9. Second. Intervenors contend in effect that the court has the same ability to consider modifications of the fee agreement as it has, on motion of the LRSD, to consider modifications of the substantive terms of the current, multiple plans. In Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d 253, 258 (1991), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, set forth the standard applicable to requested modifications of a consent decree as follows: We find the Sixth Circuit case of Heath v. Decourcy. 888 F.2d 1105 (6th Cir. 1989), instructive on this issue: To modify [a) consent decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in it original decree which impedes achieving the goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or) disadvantageous, or because circumstsnaces and conditions have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. Id. at 1110. Later, in LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995), the court wrote as follows: 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 must then determine 'whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.' Id. at 391. The modification 'must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation,' nor strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it conforms to the constitutional floor.' Ibid. In its memorandum in support of the Revised Plan, the LRSD quotes from the decision in Jacksonville Branch NAACP v. Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992) as follows: \"Modification [of a consent decree) may be considered 2 when. (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\" The modification sought is consistent with these formulations of the relevant standard. As set forth in the motion, the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors have had to engage in an extraordinary amount of work over a seven year period, much of it due to poor compliance by the LRSD. Motion, para. 7, 10. The LRSD motion envisions that the Revised Plan would be in effect for at least three years beginning eight months hence, i.e., with the start of the 1998-99 school year. LRSD Revised Plan at 16. It is obvious that much additional work by intervenors' representatives will be necessary, not only in connection with the consideration of the Revised Plan, but also in connection with its implementation if it is adopted (or with the current plans if it is not). There is another important consideration. The portion of the Settlement Agreement concerning attorneys' fees contains the following provision: \"The parties are also satisfied, upon a review of their own time records and costs in this litigation over the last five years, that the payment [the settlement amount] is fair and reasonable and consistent with the payments made over that period of time to counsel for the other parties\" [Part v., explanation and emphasis added]. When it reviewed and approved the settlement, the Court of Appeals held the figure to be reasonable in terms of the past work performed in a 34 year 3 period. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1392 (8th Cir. 1990). Intervenors' noted in their fee petition of November 21, 1995, that counsel for the LRSD had been paid for 7,261.55 additional hours on this case through August 1995 and counsel for the NLRSD 3302 hours through April 1995. In addition, counsel for the PCSSD had been paid for hours throughout the postjudgment period, but the number was unknown. Affidavit of J. W. Walker at 10-11. In brief, the extraordinary number of hours required and the LRSD poor record of compliance contributing to that fact, the continuing need for work in the LRSD, and the additional, and continuing, payments to all counsel for the other parties are reasonably interpreted as a changed circum "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1700","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, affidavit of Christopher Heller, and PCSSD's petition for release from federal court supervision and analysis of non-compliance with 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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Heller, Christopher"],"dc_date":["1997-11"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Lawyers","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School districts","Education and state","School attendance","School integration","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, affidavit of Christopher Heller, and PCSSD's petition for release from federal court supervision and analysis of non-compliance with 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/1700"],"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":["13 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, response to Joshua intervenors' motion for continuance of hearing; District Court, order; District Court, motion to dismiss appeal against North Little Rock School District (NLRSD); District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to withhold jurisdiction; District Court, LRSD's amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) petition for release from federal court supervision; Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, PCSSD analysis of non-compliance with court order; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~N DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV O 4 1997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK 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 RECEn/ED NOV '1 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD appreciates the court's responsiveness to its need - for a timely hearing on its motion for approval of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. For the reasons set forth below, however, LRSD believes that a short continuance of the scheduled hearing would benefit all of the parties and the court. 2. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the redrawing of attendance zones in accordance with certain principles described in that plan. LRSD has contracted with a software compfiny to provide boundary planning software for the purpose of drawing attendance zones in accordance with those principles. The necessary maps and student location information have been provided to the software company. Training of LRSD personnel is scheduled to begin on November 17, 1997. Within a few weeks after that date LRSD should be in a position to show the - parties and the court maps, racial balance information and other student assignment information regarding a number of possible student assignment options. This information will show the parties and the court the practical application of the student assignment principles described in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. LRSD is also in the process of developing policies and procedures which will govern the implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The parties and the court will have the benefit of more of this information if there is a short continuance of the scheduled hearing date. 4. LRSD has agreed to work with Joshua in a cooperative effort to complete all necessary discovery in a timely manner. The - significant number of witnesses and documents, and the fact that LRSD is currently engaged in boundary planning and development of implementation plans, makes it difficult to do the necessary work to insure an orderly and efficient discovery process and presentation to the court on the scheduled hearing date. 5. LRSD supports a continuance of the scheduled hearing only if the hearing can be rescheduled for a time no later than early February, 199Q. If the hearing is scheduled any later than that, LRSD believes that the court will not have sufficient time to consider the evidence and render a decision which LRSD can effectively implement for the 1998-99 school year. 2 WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD supports Joshua's motion for continuance of the scheduled December 1, 1997 hearing, provided the continuance will not delay the hearing beyond early February, 1998. 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 By:~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance of Hearing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 4th day of November, 1997: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sain Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, 1\\R 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 3 --- 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 General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 f:lbomolbd\\yllnd-__ -.............. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES 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, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 FILED u.s Ql8TRICT COl.!,'!THIU' EAiTIPI~ 01ST1'10T \"\"\"\"' \"\"' NOV O 4 '997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By (\u003e/ef?lr DEP CLERK Before the Court is the a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors requesting a continuance of the hearing scheduled for Monday, December 1, 1997 regarding the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan. This Court is sympathetic to the reasons stated by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors in support of the requested continuance. However, this matter is of great concern to the Little Rock community. Furthermore, the Court expects the hearing on the LRSD's motion to last for a full week. Because the Court has numerous criminal matters scheduled during the upcoming months, there are few alternative dates available to conduct a hearing on the LRSD's motion. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to continue the hearing on the LRSD's motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan currently set for December 1, 1997. However, this Court will wait for other parties involved in the case to file their responses to the Joshua Intervenors' motion before ruling definitively upon the request for a continuance. ,;14-._ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS~ day of November 1997. a$., ; ~ )1~ui- UNITEDSTATES DISTRlCfJGE T+l8 ~UMENT EHTEREO ON DOCKET 8tET ltl COMP~E ~TH RULE Si AN~~RCf OM //- i/- CJ 1 SY~~~~~;;.;;;- 2 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. November 4, 1997 Ms. Dana C. McWay U.S. Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, Mo 63101 Re: 97-2743 EALR JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Joshua, et al v. LRSD, et al Dear Ms. McWay: RECEIVED NOV 5 1997 OFFtC0F DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find Joshua's motion as it pertains to the NLRSD. The Joshua Intervenors previously set forth in their reply brief at pages 6 to 19 the issues that remain to be decided by the court given the partial settlement. Those pages are attached hereto. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:cac cc: Stephen Jones Enclosures 'RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NOV 5 1997 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA v. NO. 97-2743EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION TO DISMISS OFFICE OF DESE~REGATION MONITORING APPELLANT APPELLEE APPELLEE APPEAL AGAINST NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Corne now the Appellees, Joshua Intervenors, and move the Court to dismiss their appeal with respect to the North Little Rock School District Defendants: 1. The Joshua Intervenors and the North Little Rock School - District Defendants have settled their underlying fee dispute and request that this matter be dismissed as to the North Little Rock School Defendants with each party to bear its own costs and fees. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray the Court to dismiss their appeal against the North Little Rock School District with each party to bear its own costs and fees. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 01) 374-3758 ~IVVL, V ~4 Walker, No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ I, John w. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon Mr. Stephen w. Jones, Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A., 3400 TCBY Tower, 425 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, AR 72201 and Mr. Chris Heller, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, P.A., 2000 First Commercial Bank Building, 400 E. Capitol, Little Rock, AR 72201, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid on this 4th day of November, 1997.Qh  -~~~ J w. Walker I 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., * In tervenors. * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTi\u003cICT COURT EASTERN DISTR:cr ,\\FW.ANSAS NOV O 0 1997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ~ ' j \\1 :)MQG,. \\ OEP CLERK . Before the Court are two very important matters: the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") motion requesting that this Court approve its revised desegregation and education plan and the Pulaski County Special School District's (\"PCSSD\") motion requesting that this Court release it from federal court supervision. A. Previously, this Court scheduled a hearing for Monday, December 1, 1997 to address the LRSD's motion requesting that this Court approve its revised desegregation and education plan. 1 Now, before the Court is a motion requesting that this Court continue the hearing 1 Docket No. 3062. 071 currently scheduled for the week of December 1, 1997.2 By separate Order, this Court has indicated its reluctance to reschedule this hearing. 3 However, the LRSD has indicated that it \"believes that a short continuance of the scheduled hearing date would benefit all of the parties and the court. \"4 Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors also has indicated that due to his trial schedule and the amount of discovery and preparation necessary for this hearing, the Joshua Intervenors would benefit from a continuance of the scheduled hearing date.5 Therefore, after careful consideration, this Court hereby grants the motion requesting a continuance. The hearing to address the LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan will now commence at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 2, 1998. The parties still are expected to conduct discovery prior to and in preparation for this hearing. The discovery deadline is now Tuesday, January 20, 1998, approximately two weeks prior to the date of the hearing. To avoid potential discovery and evidentiary disputes, all parties are directed to exchange exhibits with one another and to provide an exhibit list, as well as copies of their exhibits, to both the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") on or before the January 20 discovery deadline. This Court will not admit any exhibit as evidence at the February hearing which was not produced on or before the discovery 2 Docket No. 3067. 3 Docket No. 3069. 4 Docket No. 3070. 5 Docket No. 3067. 2 deadline in accordance with this Order if any party objects to the exhibit's being admitted on the basis of timeliness. Due to time constraints and in an effort to be fair to all parties involved, the Court still intends to calculate the total number of hours which will be devoted to this matter and then limit accordingly the amount of time each party will have to present testimony and other evidence and to cross examine witnesses at the hearing. B. In regard to the PCS SD' s motion requesting that this Court release it from federal court supervision, this Court is aware that by separate Order the Court granted the Joshua Intervenors an extension to and including November 24, 1997 in which to file their response to the PCSSD's motion.6 Although this Court has not received or reviewed the Joshua - Intervenors' response to the PCSSD's motion, this Court anticipates that a hearing will be necessary on the PCSSD's motion. Therefore, a hearing to address the PCSSD's motion requesting release from federal court supervision will commence at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998. The discovery deadline is Monday, March 9, 1998, two weeks prior to the date of the hearing. Again, to avoid potential discovery and evidentiary disputes, all parties are directed to exchange exhibits with one another and to provide an exhibit list, as well as copies of their exhibits, to both the Court and the ODM on or before the March 9 discovery deadline. This Court will not admit any exhibit as evidence at the March hearing which was not produced on 6 See Docket No. 3063. 3 - or before the discovery deadline in accordance with this Order if any party objects to the exhibit's being admitted on the basis of timeliness. Again, due to time constraints and in an effort to be fair to all parties involved, the Court intends to calculate the total number of hours which will be devoted to this matter and then limit accordingly the amount of time each party will have to present testimony and other evidence and to cross examine witnesses at the hearing. In conclusion, this Court grants the motion requesting a continuance of the scheduled hearing on the LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan.7 The Court will conduct a hearing on the LRSD's revised plan beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, February 2, 1998.8 The discovery deadline is Tuesday, January 20, 1998. The Court also will conduct a hearing on the PCSSD's motion requesting release from - federal court supervision beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998.9 The discovery deadline is Monday, March 9, 1998. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 0 day of November 1997. 7 Docket No. 3067. u~ ED$ sTAE\u0026SDIS~TR!CJ~UDGE \"HiS DXlfr-~;;\"J.JT Er-JTE:RED CN DOCKET SHEET IN ;XJMPUANC WITH RULE 53 AI\\J~9(a) FACP ~N // .~ BY_~-------- 8 See Docket No. 3049 for a copy of the LRSD's motion regarding the revised plan. 9 See Docket No. 3057 for a copy of the PCSSD's motion regarding release from federal court supervision. 4 NOV 1 3 1997 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS, ET AL. VS. NO. 92-5318 (and consolidated MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION TO WITHHOLD JURISDICTION INTRODUCTION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS\" .\u003c;;ases.}o c:. .._J r - ~ c,,, 0 -n  ri~Em5EJ'ITS_:: 12 C?-:: c::\u003e 'J S~-~- :.~ n . .. ,;--, ,: :.. - .J4 1i~}  - c...:\u003e The PCSSD intervened in this action primarily as reg\u0026rds N ( /) certain state-aid claims that are either pending before or which have been adjudicated by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas . These claims arise from the Settlement Agreement of March, 1989 entered into among the three Pulaski County School Districts, the State of Arkansas, the - Joshua Intervenors and the teacher organizations represented by the Knight Intervenors. Each of the claims, which are more fully described below, flow from contentions by the school districts that legislat i ve changes in state funding, changes which occurred after t his Court's Order of November, 1994, violated the Districts' 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State. The claims that are either adjudicated or pending include claims regarding workers' compensation, loss funding regarding majority-to-minority (M-to-M) transfer students, teacher retirement, health insurance, special education, general loss funding, and, as respects the PCSSD, a decline in overall funding when Act 34 and Act 917 outcomes are compared. 1 THE CLAIMS AND THEIR PROCEDURAL POSTURE On January 13, 1995, the District Court entered its order as regards workers' compensation and loss funding for majority-tominority transfer students. A copy of the decision is attached to the PCSSD motion as Exhibit \"A\". Beginning at page 6 of the January 13, 1995 order, the District Court concluded that: [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 districts' workers' compensation insurance as it pays for all the other school districts in the state beginning with the 1994-95 school year. By requiring the State to assist the Pulaski County school districts to the same degree that it is assisting others, the Districts will not be \"singled out\" for less favorable treatment than the other districts. The January 13, 1995 District Court order adjudicated the issue of loss funding for M-to-M students in favor of the Pulaski County districts. Beginning at page 9 of that order, the District Court found that: It is undisputed that loss funding is a State educational funding program and one that is \"ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas.\" The Court further finds that the State is deliberately discriminating against the Districts with respect to the provision of loss funding for a decline in enrollment related to the loss of M-to-M students. Whether a district loses a student through ordinary transfer or an M-to-M transfer, the effect on that district's enrollment is the same. No matter how the loss occurs, the disruption to a school district form a net declining enrollment is the same. However, the ADE has decided not to credit the Districts for the loss of students due to M-to-M students. Thus, the ADE has determined to discriminate against the three Pulaski County districts with respect to M-to-M students. 2 The District Court went on to order the State to restore the lost State aid contended for by the Districts in accordance with the calculations set forth by the Districts. The State appealed both issues and the findings of the District Court were affirmed on appeal. 1 On February 18, 1997, the District Court entered its order granting the Districts' motions in respect of teacher retirement and health insurance. By this point, 111 other Arkansas school districts had sought to intervene and _were permitted to file amicus curiae responses in support of the State's position. The Fe~ruary 18, 1997 order is attached to the PCSSD motion as Exhibit 11 B11  The District Court reasoned that: 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 with distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money\" formula 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 formula 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. The District Court concluded its discussion by noting: As noted before, the desegregation Settlement Agreement provides that \"[f]air and rational adjustments to the 1The January 13, 1995 order also dealt with the issue of the Arkansas Public School Computer Network. That issue has been resolved and need not concern this Court. 3 funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts.\" See Settlement Agreement,  II, 1 L. Even if the Court were to find that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement is an \"adjustment\" to the funding formula which has \"general applicability,\" however, the Court cannot find that it is a \"fair and rational adjustment.\" Because of the added obligations of the three Pulaski County school districts, a funding scheme that does not consider the number of eligible employees is not \"fair and rational.\" February 13, 1997 Order, pp. 11-12. This issue is presently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On April 22, 1997, the District Court entered its order as respects the issue of health insurance. The April 22, 1997 order is attached to the PCSSD motion as Exhibit \"C\". The District Court likewise granted the motions of the Districts reasoning, inter alia that: Because of the settling districts' added obligations, this Court found that the new funding scheme, which does not consider the number of eligible employees, is not \"fair and rational.\" While the State may contend that the settling districts will receive more formula money under the new funding scheme, the Court finds that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula. April 22, 1997 Order, p. 5. The health insurance issue is likewise on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. 4 .,,. \"' ;~. -: ? ~ ~ ~ .. ~- While the District Court, in the same order, declined to grant the Districts' motion as respects special education and general loss funding, those issues remain before the District Court for hearing and resolution. Finally, the PCSSD filed its separate motion with the District Court on September 2, 1997 contending that the change from Act 34 to Act 917, the Act before this Court, cost it several million dollars and that the change violates the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This issue remains upon the docket of the Pistrict Court for hearing and resolution. A copy of the PCSSD's September 2, 1997 motion and brief are attached as Exhibit \"D\". The essential grounds for the separate PCSSD motion pending in federal court are essentially set forth in the PCSSD's response to Lake View plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees dated August 29, 1997. CONCLUSION The principal purpose of this motion is to further educate this Court concerning issues pending in federal court and over which the federal courts have taken and continue to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This Court will no doubt have to grapple with many, if not all, of the topics discussed above. Indeed, this Court may find useful some of the explanations, rationales and conclusions made by the District Court. However, it is respectfully submitted, this Court should proceed in a manner which recognizes the 5 adjudication or pendency of these issues in federal court and should craft its ultimate orders accordingly. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF On November Ju , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. E. Dion Wilson Wilson Law Firm, P.A. 801 Perry Street Helena, Arkansas 72342 Roy C. Lewellen Lewellen \u0026 Associates P. 0. Box 287 Marianna, AR 72360 Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. James M. Llewellyn Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902 Mr. William Brazil Brazil, Clawson, et al. 913 Oak Street Conway, Arkansas 72032 Mr. Donn Mixon Mixon \u0026 McCauley Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. David Matthews Matthews, Campell \u0026 Rhoads 119 S. Second Street Rogers, AR 72756 Mr. Allen Roberts Allen P. Roberts, P.A. P. 0. Box 280 Camden, Arkansas Mr. Edwin Alford 510 N. Second P. 0. Box 1588 Nashville, Arkansas Mr. David Wilson Ms. Pam Grondin 6 71701 71852 P. 0. Box 1442 Jonesboro, AR 72403 Mr. Malcolm Bobo Department of Finance \u0026 Adm. P. 0. Box 1272 Little Rock, AR 72203 Mr. Don Trimble 1124 MLKing Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Eugene G. Sayre Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones . 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Fayetteville School Dist. P. 0. Box 849 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Mr. Oscar Stilley Central Mall Plaza, #516 Fort Smith, AR 72903 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 7 (see ADE Funding 1997 for complete filing with Exhibits) 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 KnTHERINE KUIGHT, ET AL RECEIVEO NOV 1 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS . INTERVENORS INTERVENOP.S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The purpose of this amended fee petition is to address the issues remanded to the district court in the opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals filed on October 14, 1997. 2. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark charges LRSD discounted rates for fees and costs. During the period of time the issues covered by this fee petition were in litigation, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark charged LRSD $105.00 per hour for partners and $85.00 per hour for associates. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark also charges LRSD reduced amounts for some costs, such as couriers, and does not charge for . other costs, such as meals. During the period of time covered by this litigation, the normal hourly billing rate for Christopher Heller was $160. 00 and the normal hourly billing rate for Clay Fendley was $100.00. 3. Most of LRSD counsels' time concerning the APSCN issue was excluded from the previous fee petition. Two further adjustments are necessary to meet the terms of the Eighth Circuit order. First, the time entry for June 19, 1995 includes, among other entries, some time for drafting an APSCN argument. That time should be reduced by one-half, or a total of five hours, to remove the time spent on the APSCN argument. Second, the time spent on the four hearing days in preparation for and participating in the hearings on the three issues in this case should be 4educed byonethird in order to remove the time devoted to the APSCN issue. Our contemporaneous time records show a total of 3 6. 5 hours spent preparing for and participating in hearings on September 14, 15, 16 and 21, 1994. That time should be reduced by 12.25 hours to reflect the time devoted to the APSCN issue. 4. LRSD is a prevailing party and is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The amount of attorneys' fees for Christopher Heller should be reduced by a total of 17.25 hours for the reasons set forth above. LRSD is entitled to $39,760.00 in attorneys' fees (Christopher Heller - 244.75 hours x $160.00 = $39,160.00; Clay Fendley - 6 hours x $100.00 = $600.00) and $563.32 in costs. 5. The, fees and costs are supported by the attached Affidavit. WHEREFORE, in accordance with this court's previous order and the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals filed October 2 14, 1997, LRSD prays for an order awarding it $39,760.00 in attorneys' fees and $563.32 in costs. 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School district's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs As To State Defendants has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 13th day of November, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 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 General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 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 AEcen.teo NOV 1 3 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS I, Christopher Heller, after being duly sworn, state under oath: 1. The billing statements attached to our original fee petition filed August 30, 1996 reflect the hours worked on this - matter as recorded in contemporaneous time records. All of the time shown on these billing statements has been billed to LRSD and those bills have been paid. 2. During the period of time covered by this fee petition, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark contracted with LRSD to provide legal services at discounted fees. The discounted rates charged to LRSD were $105. 00 per hour for partners and $85. 00 per hour for associates. 3. I have been engaged in the private practice of law at Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark for sixteen (16) years. My normal hourly billing rate for the period of time covered by this fee petition is $160. 00. That rate is in line with rates typically charged by lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 4. Clay Fendley is an associate with Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark with five (5) years of experience. His normal hourly billing rate during the period of time covered by this fee petition is $100.00. This rate is in line with billing rates for lawyers of similar experience and ability in Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. My time in this case was devoted primarily to the loss funding and workers' compensation issues. During the course of preparing the previous fee petition, I reviewed the billing rec.ords in an effort to exclude time which was devoted to matters on which LRSD did not prevail, including the APSCN issue and our petition for reconsideration to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. In consideration of the Eighth Circuit order filed October 14, 1997, and upon. further review of the time records attached to the original petition, I have determined that the time entry for June 19, 1995 should be reduced by five hours to remove the time listed as \"drafted APSGC (sic) argument.\" 6. The time entries for the hearing dates, September 14, 15, 16 and 21, 1994, a total of 36.5 hours, should be reduced by onethird, or 12.25 hours, to remove the time spent on APSCN issues. The number of .h ours for which LRSD should be awarded fees should therefore be reduced from 262 in the original petition to 244.75 for my time. The amount of attorneys' fees should be reduced by a total of $2760.00, from $42,520.00 in the original petition to $39,760.00. 2 7. As can be seen from the billing statements attached to the original fee petition, the time expended on this matter was originally recorded and billed as part of the general Little Rock School District desegregation case file (LI230-90). Following the district court decision, a separate file was established (LI230- 159). In reviewing the general file, I was very conservative in my effort to segregate the time which was devoted to the issues in this discreet matter. Many time entries which were more probably than not related to this matter are not included in the fee request. Further affiant sayeth not. 3 ATTESTATION I, Christopher Heller, the undersigned herein, state that the foregoing Affidavit is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge \u0026 belief. Dated this 13th day of Novem "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1670","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision","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":["1997-10"],"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","Education--Standards","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision"],"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/1670"],"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":["29 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion for approval of revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision; Court of Appeals, ruling; Court of Appeals, reply brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al.; District Court, Knight intervenors' response to motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to the Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for an extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) petition for release from federal court supervision; District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. O. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED OCT 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDA TS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Knight Intervenors, et al., by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM. for their Motion, state: 1. They were served with a copy of the Little Rock School District's Motion for Approval of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan on September 29, 1997. 2. Due to several of the leaders of the Knight, et al. Intervenors being out of town, there will be insufficient time to frame a response to its Motion. 3. Knight, et al., Intervenors should be granted an extension of ten (10) days in which to respond to the Motion. WHEREFORE, Knight, et al., Intervenors prays that it be granted an additional ten days or until October 19, 1997, to respond to the Motion for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and that they be granted all other relief to which they may be entitled Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on October 6, 1997 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building. Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JE::-.iNJNGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roache!! .,- ----- .. - 'RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT !:ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OCT 9 1997 OCT 7 1997 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, Cl.ERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR A HEARING TO DEVELOP PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE LRSD FOR THE APPROVAL OF A REVISED PLAN On November 30, 1995, the LRSD filed a motion for an order - dismissing this case retroactively. This court, which had by that time considerable knowledge about the quality of plan implementation efforts in the LRSD, denied the motion on March 11, 1996. This court reasoned in part (at 8): The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. On September 26, 1997, the LRSD filed a brief motion and a short memorandum seeking \"approval of LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan.\" Despite the foregoing ruling, the memorandum, incorporated by reference in the motion (para. 1 - 10), asserts that \"LRSD has now substantially complied with its obligations under the plan for six years.\" AT 1. It also characterizes the new plan as one which \"leaves it to the district's professionals to determine the best means to fulfill each obligation.\" At 4. In brief, officials found to exhibit frequently \"indifference or outright recalcitrance toward (their] commitments\" asset that they are entitled to have the court approve a largely standardless plan. Put another way, LRSD asserts the right to have approved a plan under which a number of unidentified persons define the content of the district's obligations, as they go along. It is apparent that the motion of the LRSD presents - substantial questions, warranting careful consideration. The predicate for this view is not limited to the foregoing general observations about the past performance and the degree of discretion granted by the plan. First. LRSD cites the Supreme Court decision in Rufo v Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), concerning modification of a consent decree. That decision holds that a party seeking modification of a consent decree \"bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.\" Id., at 383. It \"may meet it initial burden by showing a significant change either in factual conditions or in law.\" Id., at 384 . In considering factual matter, it is appropriate to evaluate whether a party \"made a 2 reasonable effort to comply with the decree .... \" Id., at 385. Second. Once a party has met its burden of showing a factual or legal matter warranting modification, the court \"should determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.\" Id., at 391. This can not be said is there is simply an effort \"to rewrite a consent decree so that is conforms to the constitutional floor.\" Id. Third. The Court of Appeals applied Rufo in this case to a proposal concerning the closing of Ish Incentive School. LRSD v PCSSD, 56 F3d 904, 912-15 (8th Cir. 1995). In approving that proposal, the court emphasized with regard to the replacement school for Ish students, \"King will be integrated.\" Id., at 914. In the light of the foregoing factors, including the - standards governing in the case of a request for modification of a consent decree, the Joshua Intervenors seek a hearing to discuss at least the following factors. (1.) An opportunity for intervenors to conduct discovery. The LRSD relies to a considerable extent on assertion. The plan refers to policies (unspecified) in many areas. The meaning of the educational component of the plan is not self-evident. The quality of implementation efforts is relevant under Rufo. The impact of the student assignment proposals on desegregation is significant in view of the appellate ruling in this case cited above. (2.) The need for a report or reports by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the nature and the quality of 3 LRSD implementation in key areas. The LRSD seeks to dilute its obligation to address achievement disparity, as wells racial disparity in other areas. Compare the initial portion of the Interdistrict Plan to the new plan. It is appropriate to request ODM to determine whether the LRSD made an organized effort to eliminate the achievement disparity and other racial disparities to the extent possible, before changing the plan. Rufo addresses the quality of implementation efforts, and cautions against efforts to move to the \"constitutional floor: -- from the provisions to which a party voluntarily agreed. (3.) The possibility of a delay in the consideration of the motion until the court of appeals reviews the denial of a fee award to intervenors' counsel. The parties should be on equal - footing when addressing such fundamental changes in the plans. That is not the case now. (4.) A time period for the intervenors to respond to the motion, whatever the court's reaction to these issues. District court decisions cited by the LRSD do not warrant the relief sought by the District. In the Denver litigation, the court found in 1987 that \"the defendants have made a sincere and strenuous effort to meet the requirements of the October 1985 Order.'' Keyes v School District No. 1, 653 F. Supp. 1536, 1540 (D. Colo. 1987); see also Keyes, 902 F. Supp. 1274, 1286 (D. Colo. 1995) (\"The District has complied in good faith with the Interim Decree entered by this Court in 1987.\"). The court in the Dallas case voted significant improvement in the district's 4 implementation efforts over time. Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454, 457, 460, 477 (N.D. Tex. 1994). This case does not present a parallel situation. Here, the court has found implementation to be deficient. E.g., Order of March 11, 1996, at 8-9. (5.) The district's request that ODM monitoring continue to be restrained. In intervenor's view, as noted, ODM monitoring should focus on key elements of the current plan and that the ODM monitoring role should be consisitent with the one which the Court of Appeals established. (6.) The actions, advice and recommendations provided by the court or through the ODM to the school district which actions. advice and recommendations have not been otherwise shared with the intervenors. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the court to set a hearing for the purpose of developing procedures for the consideration of the motion of the LRSD for the approval of the revised plan. The Intervenors further respectfully request that ODM monitoring be resumed and continued in the interim and in the manner contemplated and directed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. With respect this requested relief, Joshua also respectfully requests that the court and the ODM disclose any and all information, assistance, advice and counsel which, it or anyone associated with the court, have provided to the Little Rock School District or any of its employees, board members or agents during the past year, during 5 - the time when monitoring was abated. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was s~ry~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~ day of October, 1997. 6  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF ., V . NO . LR - C - 8 2 - 8 6.it. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL NECEn,m DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. DCi 14 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION INTRODUCTION The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. It asks this Court co examine the record that has been made, to hold a hearing on those issues, if any, which might be legitimately in controversy, and to ultimately enter its decree declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and release it from further court supervision. In this peticion, the PCSSD will briefly revisit the background of this case, will set forth the controlling law, will examine the determinations of other courts from around the country which have declared other districts to be unitary, and will then apply the facts of this case to the controlling legal principles. BACKGROUND This action was filed on November 30, 1982 by the LRSD against the PCSSD and others. 1 Liability was adjudicated against the PCSSD and others on April 10, 1984 and a consolidation of the three school districts in Pulaski County was ordered. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (hereafter the Court of Appeals), en bane, affirmed mos~ of the findings of liability of the district court, but reversed the court ordered consolidation and prescribed a different remedy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the boundaries of the LRSD would become those of the city of Little Rock as they then existed. ~he Court of Appeals also ordered the transfer of the Granite Moun~ain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. As a result of these transfers, the PCSSD lost 36% of its tax base, one-third of its schools, and 25% of its students. In the same opinion, the Court of Appeals ordered all three districts t o develop desegregation plans that would distribute students in a way such that each school would have approximately the same racial balance as each district had as a whole. Significantly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the remedy it then ordered was a comolete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexatior.s, segregated housing, school siting, student 1The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. assignments, special education, transportation, employment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, o~her proceedings occurred, both before the district court and the Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and the agreed upon Desegregation Plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not =inalized in all of its particulars until April, 1992, the PCSSD has operated since 1989 under substantially the same plan. Thus, the PCSSD will highlight for the Court its efforts and activities since 1989 which it believes warrant a finding of unitary status. THE APPLICABLE LAW In 1992, the United States Supreme Court discussed the issue of unitary status ~n Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992), explaining that: [A)s we explained last term in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. , , 111 S.Ct. 630, 636, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991), the term \"unitary\" is not a precise concept: \"[I)t is a mistake to treat words such as 'dual' and 'unitary' as if they were actually found in the Constitution .... Courts have used the term 'dual' to denote a school system which has engaged in intentional segregation of students by race, and 'unitary' to describe a school system which has been brought into compliance with the command of the Constitution. We are not sure how useful it is to define these terms more precisely, or to create subclasses within them.\" It follows that we must be cautious not to attribute to the term a utility it does not have. The term \"unitary\" does not confine the discretion and authority 3 of the District Court in a way that departs from traditional equitable principles. 112 S.Ct. at 1443-44. The Freeman court further explained that: [l] Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of its facts. Green, supra, at 439, 88 S.Ct., at 1694. Here, as in most cases where the issue is the degree of compliance with a school desegregation decree, a critical beginning point is the degree of racial imbalance in the school district, that is to say a comparison of the proportion of majority to minority students in individual schools with the proportions of the races in the district as a whole. This inquiry is fundamental, for under the former de jure regimes racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of or hostility towards the disfavored race. In accord with this principle, the District Court began its analysis with an assessment of the current racial mix in the schools throughout DCSS and the explanation for the racial imbalance it found. 112 S.Ct. at 1437. The PCSSD will comply with this requirement, as did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1996 in the Wilmington case when it af:irmed the district court's declaration of unitary scatus in Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, et al., 90 F.3d 752 (3rd Cir. 1996) : A critical starting point in identifying vestiges of discrimination is the degree of racial imbalance in the school districts. This inquiry is fundamental, because under the former de jure regime, a racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of, and hostility towards, the disfavored race. The Court's 1968 opinion in Green squarely addressed this issue, noting that \"[t]he pattern of separate 'white' and 'Negro' schools ... established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown II were particularly addressed.\" Green, 391 U.S. at 435, 88 S.Ct. at 1693. However, the Green Court also made clear that in examining the problem of racial imbalance in 4 our schools, we are to look \"not just to the composition of student bodies ... but to every facet of school operations - - faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities.\" Id.; see also Swann, 402 U.S. at 18, 91 S.Ct. at 1277 (the Green factors are \"among the most important indicia of segregated system.\") Because compliance with Green factors is a condition precedent to unitary status, we will survey each of those factors here. 90 F.3d at 760. The PCSSD will likewise assess the Green factors especially as each of them is addressed in its Desegregation Plan. The Wilminoton Court also commented upon federal court supervision in general. Addressing the Supreme Court's decision in Jenkins, the Wilminoton Court noted: Given the Court's recent assertion that federal supervision of local school districts \"'was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination,\"' Jenkins, U.S. , 115 S.Ct. at 2049 (quoting Dowell, 498 U.S. at:247, 111 S.C~. at 637), we underscore that the phrase \"to the extent praccicable\" implies a reasonable limit on the duration of that federal supervision. Indeed, to extend federal court supervision indefinitely is neither practicable, desirable, nor proper. 90 F.3d at 760. The Wilmington Court further explained that: This equitable remedy and, by definition, its jurisprudential legitimacy, were meant to have a limited lifespan. The remedy was designed to serve only as an implement for monitoring and guidance, not as a permanent substitute for state and local school boards, or [**84] indeed, for the state legislature. Thus in our zeal to insure maximum educational opportunities for all Delaware school students, the federal courts must bear in mind that the responsibility for administering the schools ultimately belongs to locally elected officials. Indeed, we must acknowledge that although it has been proper for us to supervise multiple generations of students in the service of unassailable ideals, in the process we have also denied multiple generations of elected officials the freedom to participate fully in representative government. 90 F.3d at 779 5 Additional legal principles and teachings from other cases will be set forth as appropriate infra as particular topics are addressed. THE LAW OF THIS CASE The Court of Appeals, in its 1990 decision, reaffirmed the 1985 en bane court's decision that the previously mandated territorial exchanges were the remedy for all of the interdistrict violations. It explained that: We also held, however, agreeing in this respect with the District Court, that interdistrict violations of the Constitution had occurred, and that an interdistrict remedy was accordingly required. We directed the District Court, on remand, to adjust the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD in two respects: (1 ) by transferring the Granite Mountain area from LRSD to PCSSD; and (2) by expanding LRSD so that the new boundary line becween it and PCSSD would be the city limits of the City of Little Rock, as they then existed. We further held--addressing the question of student attendance within each of the districts--that \"each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, supra, 778 F.2d at 435. Our opinion included a number of other directions with respect to magnet schools, student-attendance arrangements, and other matters. The District Court held that LRSD would automatically expand whenever the city annexed new territory, so that LRSD would always be contiguous with the city as it existed from time to time. We reversed. We held that the remedy contemplated by our en bane opinion was intended to be a complete cure for all interdistrict violations that we had found. The en bane opinion, we said, prescribed \"a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past,\" including all interdistrict violations. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Circ. 1986) (per curiam) . Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1377 (8th Cir. 1990) 6 It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the Interdistrict Plan, and the Plans of the other school districts were not specifically mandated as remedial devices by the Court of Appeals. For instance, the six interdistrict schools, while subsequently embraced by the Court of Appeals, were never mandated as part of any prescribed remedy. For that matter, the Court of Appeals never specifically mandated that the PCSSD pursue affirmative action in hiring and in staffing its schools and other operations. Indeed, it held in 1985 that the territorial transfer was the remedy for, among other things, violations in the areas of special education, transportation, and employment of faculty and administrators. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Soecial School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985 ) . To be sure, these topics and others are prominently featured in the Plan. Some are among the Green factors to be discussed later. However, because they were not specifically mandated as part of any remedy, issues arise such as burden of proof as to compliance and will be discussed fully infra. were 1985. THE GREEN FACTORS I. RACIAL BALANCE AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The guidelines for racial balance in all three districts initially addressed and laid down by the en bane Court in It explained then that: In constructing a desegregation remedy, a court may not rigidly require a particular racial balance. Pasadena Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436-38, 96 S.Ct. 2697, 2704-06, 49 L.Ed.2d 599 ((1976); 7 Milliken I, 418 U.S. at 739-40, 94 S.Ct. at 3124-25; Swann, 402 U.S. at 22-25, 91 S.Ct. at 1279-81. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the awareness of the racial composition of a school district or school districts is a useful starting point in developing an effective remedy, and thus the limited use of racial ratios is within the Court's equitable discretion. Swann, 402 U.S. at 25, 91 S.Ct. at 1280. Thus, the Supreme Court has approved a remedy imposed by the district court requiring that all schools in the school district be roughly within the same racial balance. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 455 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2945 n. 3, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Swann, 402 U.S. at 23-25, 91 S.Ct. at 1279-80. Our Court has consequently approved the use of flexible ratios in desegregation remedies on numerous occasions ... In any event, in this case, we have closely tailored the remedy to the violations and we are not requiring a particular racial balance in each district (Citations omitted.) LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 433. The en bane Court then articulated the guideline applicable in this case: 4. After the boundaries between LRSD and PCSSD have been adjusted, each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district. Consistent with earlier district court orders with respect to these schools, school districts may, where necessary, be permitted to depart from this remedial guideline in that school enrollments may over- or underrepresent blacks or whites by as much as one-fourth of the remedial guideline for either race. We see no reason why, on this record, the variance should exceed this level. [Emphasis added.] 778 F.2d at 435. Ultimately, of course, the current PCSSD Plan was examined by the Court of Appeals which approved the student assignment goals agreed to by all of the parties. The Court of Appeals 8 explicitly approved the student assignment goals of the PCSSD and the other parties interpreting them as follows: So far as racial ratios were concerned, the Plan included the following goals: 13. With the exception of Bayou Meto, the goal of the plan shall be to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools .... 14. With the exception of Bayou Meto, it is hoped that the dynamics of the plan will result, by the end of the implementation period, in all PCSSD schools being within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing district-wide average of blacks by organizational level. However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d at 1378-79. - As will be explained further, the PCSSD believes it has satisfied, for a period of years, the racial balance and student assignment components of its Plan. Before specifically examining the racial balance outcomes in the PCSSD, it is useful to examine the racial balance outcomes that pertain in Freeman v. Pitts, in which a declaration of unitary status was affirmed even upon facts dramatically different than the outcomes found in the PCSSD. As the Supreme Court explained in Freeman: Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. It is to be pursued when racial imbalance has been caused by a constitutional violation. Once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors. Swann, 402 U.S., at 31-32, 91 S.Ct., at 1283-84 9 (\"Neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination through official action is eliminated from the system. This does not mean that federal courts are without power to deal with future problems; but in the absence of a showing that either the school authorities or some other agency of the State has deliberately attempted to fix or alter demographic patterns to affect the racial composition of the schools, further intervention by a district court should not be necessary\"). If the unlawful de jure policy of a school system has been the cause of the racial imbalance in student attendance, that condition must be remedied. The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation. 112 S.Ct. at 1447. It is instructive to set forth the outcomes of the DeKalb County schools as summarized by the United States Supreme Court. Concerned with racial imbalance in the various schools of the district, respondents presented evidence that during che 1986-1987 school year DCSS had the following features: (1) 47% of the students attending DCSS were black; (2) 50% of the black students attended schools that were over 90% black; (3) 62% of all black students attended schools that had more than 20% more blacks than the systemwide average; (4) 27% of white students attended schools that were more than 90% white; (5) 59% of the white students attended schools that had more than 20% more whites than the systemwide average; (6) of the 22 DCSS high schools, five had student populations that were more than 90% black, while five other schools had student populations that were more than 80% white; and (7) of the 74 elementary schools in DCSS, 18 are over 90% black, while 10 are over 90% white. Id., at 31a. 112 s.ct. ac 1438. Despite these statistical outcomes, the United States Supreme Courc found that the system was unitary with respect to student assignment and racial balance. As we will examine below, the track record of the PCSSD is far superior to that of the 10 schools in DeKalb County, Georgia, is in compliance with any and all tests which may be reasonably applied, and that the PCSSD has demonstrated its entitlement to unitary status. THE PCSSD OUTCOMES District-wide, the racial composition of the PCSSD since 1989 has been as follows: I I 89-90 I I Total I 21,607 I I % Black I 26 I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 90-91 I 91-92 I 92-93 I 93-94 I 94.95 21,597 I 21,062 I 21,633 I 20,426 I 20,417 26 I 27 I 28 I 30 I 31 I 95-96 I 96-97 I 20,534 I 20,295 I 32 I 33 Since 1989, the composition of the District's elementary schools has been as follows: School Adkins Elem Total % Black Arnold Drive Elem Total % Black Baker Elem Total % Black Bates Elem Total % Black Bayou Meto Elem Total % Black Cato Elem Total % Black Clinton Elem Total % Black College Station Elem Total % Black Crystal Hill Elem Total % Black PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON' 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93.94 371 360 352 420 411 40 36 39 36 37 387 411 408 390 348 18 16 14 18 23 294 291 268 283 294 27 30 25 27 25 698 638 737 680 599 47 46 47 45 45 602 596 611 648 649 2 2 2 1 1 656 655 663 650 569 21 24 21 21 22 242 279 310 326 277 40 38 34 33 40 776 746 40 43 94.95 95-96 96-97 397 343 312 39 36 38 375 380 381 25 24 22 304 318 318 24 27 24 550 485 464 53 56 54 639 635 628 1 2 3 523 552 542 23 22 22 661 661 739 49 50 47 316 309 323 43 41 41 791 790 778 45 46 46 21995-1996 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD PCSSD Dated January 30, 1996, by Office of Desegregation Monitoring, Docket No. 2614 11 I I I School 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Dupree Elem Total 470 414 431 458 428 435 462 438 % Black 20 21 24 23 22 22 26 26 Fuller Elem Total 587 560 529 524 473 431 381 375 % Black 57 56 58 57 63 58 57 59 Harris Elem Total 633 616 605 546 479 331 325 303 % Black 31 32 34 40 47 44 50 53 Jacksonville Elem Total 796 817 844 847 763 759 752 731 % Black 32 28 27 27 31 37 41 42 Landmark Elem Total 563 566 522 518 498 499 484 504 % Black 47 46 44 46 46 43 41 43 Lawson Elem Total 334 345 331 321 304 305 308 294 % Black 19 15 16 14 16 23 19 16 Oak Grove Elem Total 572 573 515 469 438 435 451 421 % Black 12 14 13 24 24 22 23 24 Oakbrooke Elem Total 678 659 629 592 600 449 455 453 % Black 25 21 18 18 21 22 23 24 Pine Forrest Elem Total 625 677 658 518 434 455 498 456 % Black 14 14 15 20 21 19 20 21 Pinewood Elem Total 614 619 631 619 580 549 579 543 % Black 27 27 27 30 31 29 31 35 Robinson Elem Total 450 433 443 420 411 388 387 382 % Black 22 22 23 25 24 22 25 21 Scott Elem Total 203 207 205 191 147 158 136 127 % Black 37 34 34 35 34 32 36 35 Sherwood Elem Total 518 448 443 490 450 459 463 416 % Black 24 24 26 24 26 24 27 25 Sylvan Hills Elem Total 755 802 755 735 685 424 444 422 % Black 18 16 17 18 23 21 25 24 Taylor Elem Total 455 468 423 420 388 409 420 397 % Black 24 28 26 26 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1671","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (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)"],"dc_date":["1997-09-26"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School board members","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (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/1671"],"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":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITILE 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 OFFiCE OF DESEGREGATiOiu t,10.'JITORINJ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") states: 1. This court has expressed the view that modifications of LRSD' s Desegregation Plan might be appropriate. The court has properly recognized that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications, but has provided expert testimony concerning potential areas for modification. The court further assisted the plan modification process by providing LRSD a period of time during which the district could  concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Order, December 27, 1996. LRSD has prepared a modified plan for the purpose of providing improved education and desegregation. LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and :Education Plan is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. 2. LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was developed in accordance with the plan amendment process. All of the parties to this case received early drafts of the plan and had the opportunity to make suggestions concerning the plan. LRSD amended the plan in response to suggestions made by various parties. In addition, the Joshua Intervenors were specifically asked whether they bad any ideas for improving the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Joshua did not make any suggestions for plan modifications. Although much of the contact soliciting responses from other parties was made by telephone, the correspondence which reflects the distribution of LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and our solicitation of responses from the other parties is attached as Exhibit B to this motion. 3. On September 18, 1997 the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to adopt the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to present it to the district court for approval. The comments of the board members, attached as Exhibit C, show that they gave serious consideration to the plan and that they understand the important commitment they have made to work for the success of the plan if it is approved by the district court. Representatives of the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools expressed to the board their strong support for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4. The United States Supreme Court has emphasized in the recent cases of Freeman v. Pitts and Missouri y. Jenkins that the district court's end purpose in a desegregation case is not only to remedy the violation to the extent practicable, but also to restore state and local authorities to control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a means by which this court can 2 accomplish both the maximum practicable desegregation within LRSD and the restoration of local control to the LRSD Board of Directors and the citizens of Little Rock. 5. LRSD's current desegregation plan was designed to operate for a period of six years. It is too detailed, too complex and too rigid to provide LRSD the greatest possibility for long term desegregation. The primary architects of the old plan are no longer with the district. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan retains the core desegregation commitments found in the old plan, but is premised on the belief that a solid education program provides the best foundation for long term desegregation. 6. The new plan also provides the flexibility necessary for LRSD to adapt to changing educational and demographic conditions. LRSD has more freedom under the new plan to adjust the means by which it seeks to reach its desegregation and education goals without unnecessary court involvemenL Under the present plan, every detail concerning implementation of the plan is a part of the plan itself and cannot be changed without involving the court. 7. This court previously found that LRSD would benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Order, December 27, 1996. LRSD asks the court to continue the temporary hiatus from monitoring during the court's consideration of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 8. As part of the effort to allow the parties to focus on the development of modifications to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, LRSD withdrew its motion for reconsideration of this court's ruling on LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. The court granted LRSD a period of time to and including September 30, 1997 within which to refile its motion 3 for reconsideration. LRSD asks that that deadline be extended until a reasonable time following this court's final determination with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 9. This Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation And Education Plan should not be construed as a waiver of the positions expressed in the Motion to E.nd Federal Court Jurisdiction. 10. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD moves for an order approving its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and, during the pendency of this motion, extending this court's December 27, 1997 Order with respect to monitoring and with respect to LRSD's right to refile its motion to reconsider the court's ruling on LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Ir. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:~(?_-~~ ~C. Fendley, Jr. ' Bar No. 92182 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 26th day of September, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 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. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 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 ~e.~fJ C.F~ 5 I. Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan September 18, 1997 Prior A~reements and Orders. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Lillie 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 or enforcing paragraphs A. through D. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. II. Obligations. A. LRSD shall use its expertise and resources to comply with the Constitution and provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools and to ensu_re that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD; B. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures, including but not limited to recruitment practices and reasonable measures to maintain a pool of qualified AfricanAmerican applicants, designed to ensure that LRSD hires qualified African-Americans in EXHIBIT A proportion to their percentage in the relevant labor market; C. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures, including but not limited to reasonable measures to maintain a pool of qualified African-American candidates, designed to ensure that LRSD promotes qualified African-Americans in proportion to their percentage of the pool of candidates eligible for promotion; D. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that to the extent practicable the percentage of African-American certified personnel in each LRSD school is within plus or minus fifteen percentage points from the percentage of AfricanAmerican certified personnel in the district as a whole; E. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure to the extent practicable that the certified personnel at one race, African-American schools (2. 90% African-American) is comparable with the certified personnel at other LRSD schools with regard to years of teaching experience and number of teachers with advanced degrees; F. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable; G. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education; H. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline; I. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African- 2 Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses and the gifted and talented program; J. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section V. of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; K. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students; L. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools; M. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities; N. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services; 0. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination; and, P. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. III. Student Assignments. A. Attendance Zones. Before the 1998-99 school year, LRSD attendance zones shall 3 be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD shall assign students to area1 elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent AfricanAmerican) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in subparagraph 2. below; 2. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent African-American, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school; or, b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African- American students. 3. High Schools. LRSD shall assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that, to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. B. Voluntar:y Student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 school year, the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than 1The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 4 sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes less than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (2.. 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 4. Employees' Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 5. Special Circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 6. Outside Students. LRSD 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 LRSD; and, 5 7. Transportation. LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. C. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: 1. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program; 2. King High Intensity Learning Program; 3. Washington Math Science Program; 4. Henderson Health Science Program; 5. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program; 6. Central International Studies Program; and, 7. McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. D. Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. E. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, Garland Elementary School shall be closed. F. Modification Standard; During the term of this Revised Desegregation and 6 Education Plan, LRSD shall not recommend additional modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of any additional schools unless: 1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable; or, 2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. G. Racial Balance. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. IV. lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: A. PCSSD lnterdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools; B. LRSD lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as lnterdistrict Schools; 7 C. 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; D. 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; E. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools; F. 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, G. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. V. Student Achievement. A. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. B. Reading/Language Arts. 1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve 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 will be reading independently to make accurate meaning out of words on a page; 8 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; 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 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; 1. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; J. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; and, 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. 2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four and six: a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students 9 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 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; f. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement; and, g. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom. 3. Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six2 through twelve: a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently to make meaning in all subjects areas every day 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 2LRSD recognizes that the sixth grade was previously included as an intermediate grade. The sixth grade is also included here since it will be a transition year into middle school. 10 reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking; d. Expand the use of a second Language Arts class at all secondary grade levels and establish procedures for identifying eligible students and, where practical, assigning students to their regular Language Arts teachers; e. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies; f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. C. Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction: 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; 2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum; 3. Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention; and, 4. Revise the mathematics curriculum to increase the number of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher level mathematics courses. D. Funding. LRSD shall continue to provide additional funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller elementary schools in accordance with the current formula as described 11 in August 16, 1995 report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. E. Alternative Education. LRSD shall provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment. F. Parental and Community Involvement. LRSD shall establish a parental and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. VI. Teacher Assignments. A. Beginning in the 1998-99 school year and for the term of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD reserves the right to reassign teachers and/or prohibit teacher transfers as reasonably necessary to ensure: 1. that to the extent practicable the percentage of African-American certified personnel in each LRSD school is within plus or minus fifteen percentage points from the percentage of African-American certified personnel in the district as a whole; and, 2. that to the extent practicable the certified personnel at one race, African- American schools (2.. 90% African-American) is comparable w~th the certified personnel at other LRSD schools with regard to years of teaching experience and number of teachers with advanced degrees. B. Reasonably Necessary. Reassigning and/or prohibiting the transfer of a teacher shall not be reasonably necessary where the desegrative impact would be substantially outweighed by the educational benefits of allowing a teacher to remain in his or her present assignment or to transfer to another assignment. 12 VII. LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: A. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; B. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent; C. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees; D. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; E. Utilization of a reporting system whereby employees can report noncompliance without fear of retribution, including an employee hotline; F. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for the failure to report noncompliance; and, G. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. VIII. Plan Modification Process. Before filing with the district court a proposed modification of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD shall follow the procedure set forth below: A. LRSD shall submit to the other parties and to the Office of 13 Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") its proposed modification along with an explanation of the circumstances justifying modification and the educational and financial impact of the proposed modification. B. Comment Period. Along with its notice of the proposed modification, LRSD shall establish a reasonable period of time (no less than ten days) for the parties and ODM to submit comments, recommendations or suggestions related to the proposed modification. C. Recommendation and Response. After the close of the comment period, LRSD shall file with the district court and serve on the parties its recommended modification and, at LRSD's discretion, a response to comments made by the parties and ODM. D. Hearing. Absent good cause shown, no party shall be permitted to raise an issue in opposition to LRSD's recommended modification unless that issue was raised by the party during the comment period. IX. Continuing Jurisdiction. A. General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan during its term. Nothing in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall effect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement with the exception of the Pooling Agreement. B. Process For Raising Compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the party seeking to raise the issue shall follow the procedure set forth below: 1. The party shall as soon as reasonably practicable give the LRSD 14 Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following: a. the paragraph(s) of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan at issue; b. the names of all students involved, if any; c. the names of all LRSD agents or employees involved, if any; d. all facts of which the party is aware relevant to the compliance issue; and, e. a copy all documents in party's possession relevant to the compliance issue. 2. The written notice 1s intended to provide LRSD with all relevant information related to the compliance issue known to the parry so that LRSD can assess its compliance on the same basis the party. 3. LRSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the party a written response within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from the party or such later time as agreed. 4. If the party is unsatisfied with LRSD's response, the party shall within 30 days of receipt of LRSD's response submit the compliance issue to ODM or the district court's designee for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. 5. If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by ODM or the district court's designee, the party may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. 6. Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, LRSD shall 15 be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with - this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The term of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year. XI. Transition. The 1997-98 school year shall be a transition year in preparation for implementation of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. During this transition period, LRSD shall implement the May 1992 Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan to the extent they are consistent with this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. However, there shall be no ODM monitoring or litigation concerning LRSD's implementation of the May 1992 Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Rather, ODM shall monitor LRSD's preparation for implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and act as a resource for LRSD in that process. XII. Unitarv Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 16 FRIDAY, ELDRED GE \u0026 CLARK 1411SCH(L H. FIIIOAY (11221114} WILLIAM H. IUTTON , , .A . .IAM(S W . WOOIIE IYIION M. EIS(MAN . .lllll . , P'.A . .10 D. IELL. P' .A . A l'ARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDlfALS AND l'ROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW  C . ECHOLS . ,. . A . SA. IUTTllllY , ,. .A . ElllllCl S . UIISEllllY , l\".A . LAllllZEUllllE, P' .A . OSCAII E. OAVl8 , .IA ., , . A . JAMES C . CLAAl , JA .. l\".A . THOMAS, . LEGGETT, l\" .A . JOHN O[W[Y WATSON, P' .A . ,AUL I . IENHAM Ill , l\" .A. LAIIIIY W. IUllll , fl . A . A. WYCI.LIFF NISl[T , Jl't ., fl . A. JAMES EOWAl'IO HA.lllll'IIS, l\" . A . J . l'HILLII\" MALCOM , l\" .A . JAME  M. SIMl'SON, l\" .A . JAMES M. SAXTON , , .A . J . SHErH[l'IO l'IUIIELL Ill , fl . A. DONALD H. IACON . l\" .A . WILLIAM THOMAS IAXT11 . ,. .A . WALTER A . l\"AULSON II , l\" .A . IAIIIIIY E. COl\"LIN , l\" .A . lllllCHAIIO 0 . TAYLOR , P' .A . JOIEl'H I . HURST, Jfl . , fl .A . [LIZAIETH IIOll[N MUflllllAY , , . A . CHfllSTO,HEl't HELLER , , . A . LAUllllA HENSLEY SMtTH , , . A . IIOIUIT I . SHAF[llll , fl .A . WILLIAM M. GIIIFFIN Ill , fl.A. MICHAELS . MOORE , l\" .A . DIANE 9 . MACl.[Y , , .A. WAL TOI M. EIEL Il l , l\" .A . I.EVIN A . CIIASS , l\" . A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JII ., l\" .A . John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING \u003c400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3-413 TELEPHONE 501-378-2011 FAX NO . 501-378-21\u003c47 June 5, 1997 Re: Little Rock School District Work Teams Dear John "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1678","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix","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","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-11"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix"],"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/1678"],"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":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EOWARO L WRIGHT ( 19031977) ROBERTS LINDSEY 1191 3-1991 I ISAAC A SCOTT JR JOHN G LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S RATHER .JR TERRY L MATr-lEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD . ..;R PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON .JENNINGS. JR .JOHN R TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M . SAMUEL .JONES Ill .JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N M NORTON EDGAR .J . TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER .R CHARLES L SCHLUMBEq;GER SAMMYE L . TAYLOR WALTER E . MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBS0'.\"11 GREGORY T. JONES H KEITH MORRISON Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building Suite 510 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX t501) 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A MAY M TODD WOOD September 11, 1997 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas RE: LRSD v. PCSSD (State Funding) Dear Ms. Brown: 72201 SETTINA E BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSP4.0DEN ~OGER O ROWE \"IIANCY BELLHCUSE \"\"'~y JOHN O DAVIS .UOY SIMMONS HE\"IIRY ... IMBERLY WOOC n,;c~EQ ~AY F CO'\u003c JR \"'IARRY S HURST .R TROY A PRICE PA.TRICIA A SIEVERS .. AMES M MOOCY ..;R \"'(ATHRYN A PRYOR .J_ '-1ARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCCC -.... \"EVIN W KENNEDY .:EARY J SALL,NGS C-RED M PERKINS Ill W ILLIAM STUART JAC~SC'.\"11 \\.tlCHAEL O BARNES STEPHEN R :..ANCAS7ER .. UOY \\1 ROBINSON 9E:'SY MEACHAM .\\ INSLEY H :..ANG i\u003cYLE R W ILSOS ::ON S McKINNEY \\.tlCHELE SIMMONS AL-G::.::: -\u003cR IS TI M \\.tOOOY .J CH ARLES OOU GHEE=l:Tv \\.t SEAN HATC!-i We enclose a copy of the brief and appendix we sent to the 8th Circuit on Monday, September 8, 1997. ALJ:MM Enclosures Very truly yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS (-'- C I --- Angell Jones Legal Assistant   -   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-1855EALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. SEP 1 2 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-185SEALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Appeals from the United States District Court APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The State and Intervenors maintain that summary judgment was inappropriate both as a matter of law and because there were contested factual matters among the parties. For there to be a legally disputed fact, the disputed fact must be both material and the dispute genuine. The State disputed the fact that sums previously appropriated by the legislature as line items for teacher retirement and health insurance are now part of the overall appropriation for equalization funding. Because the proof left no room for reasonable minds to differ, the so called dispute cannot be characterized as \"genuine\". The State also contended there was a disputed issue of fact concerning the mechanism for distribution of equalization funding claiming that it interpreted the distribution in one fashion and the districts another. Because the District Court accepted the State's explanation, this dispute, if it was ever legally cognizable, played no role in the District Courts' decision. Further, in the final analysis the District Court's interpretation of these two matters amounts to an interpretation of new state law and is therefore a legal conclusion properly reached by the District Court. As this is a matter of significant financial impact upon the PCSSD, and implicates the continued proper functioning and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, it respectfully requests fifteen minutes for oral argument. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Summary judgment was appropriate because the \"facts\" alleged by the State and the Intervenors could not be genuinely disputed. In addition, the analysis conducted by the district court, and the essential conclusion she made, amount to conclusions of law since she was required to interpret new state legislation. The PCSSD was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the change from the old to the new funding system cost it over $5.5 million this past school year. The State's decision to change its manner of funding for health insurance premiums and teacher retirement matching was not a fair and rational change in the funding system because, as was the case in the workers' compensation appeal, the State changed from a cost-based system of distribution to one in which a district's student population drives the distribution. Just as in the case of workers' compensation, a change to a system in which student populations largely dictate the distribution of State funding ignores costs, is not fair and rational and is not in accord with the Settlement Agreement. ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENT I. II. III. IV. CONCLUSION STANDARD OF REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW .............. . THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE PCSSD IS A WINNER UNDER THE NEW SCHEME IS PLAINLY WRONG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii Page i ii iv 1 5 5 5 12 20 29 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (1985) STATUTES AND RULES: 14 12 Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)2 ............... 6 OTHER AUTHORITY: U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OP THB CASE Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) does not quarrel with the State's and Intervenors' history of the case and their description of the outcomes. A couple of minor clarifications are in order, and will be set forth below. There is, however, a major matter set forth in both Statements which is wrong and this will be addressed first. In the concluding paragraphs of the State's brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the State contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 State Br. at p. 24, [Emphasis supplied.] Contrary to the State's assertion that the PCSSD was a \"winner\", and as it will demonstrate in Section IV, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 this past school year because of the new funding system. The State also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". State App. at p.98. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic] equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors contend that: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. Br. at p. 10. The PCSSD has now examined the effects of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate, relying upon data obtained from the State, that the new funding system as a whole cost the PCSSD at least $5,500,000 this past school year. At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. Other Matters The three Pulaski Districts did not move to intervene as plaintiffs in the Lake View case. They simply intervened as parties to protect and represent, in state court, the rights, protections and safeguards they possessed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement over which the District Court has I jurisdiction. PC App. at p. 58. I I I I Also, the State paid the districts $130,000,000 to settle the state's legal liability to these three Districts and secured 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a Release and Dismissal. They did not pay these sums simply to help the Districts pay for some of their desegregation costs. The sums specified by the State that would result in increased M-to-M payments to the Districts are not supported by any citation to the record. However, even if these amounts are accurate, the increases are accounted for by annual increases in overall State appropriations and by the fact that instead of being paid directly by the State, teacher retirement and health insurance are now paid through the new formula and, as the district court explained in her orders, this method of payment short-changes the three Pulaski Districts as compared to most other districts in the state. State Ad. p. 5. Thus, while this manner of payment does operate to increase M-to-M payments, it comes at the expense of reduced State aid overall to the PCSSD. The Intervenors contend that the declaration of Winston Simpson, Superintendent of the Bryant School District, is uncontradicted on the issue of employee costs. In fact, an examination of this declaration reveals that Mr. Simpson examined only certified salary costs (such as teacher salaries) and not the overall employee costs for the PCSSD which includes non certified staff. However, the record developed in this case from previous hearings is uncontradicted that employee costs in the PCSSD consume more than 80% of its annual budget, PC App. at p. 87 1 4, and that its average teacher salary ranks as the 5th or 6th highest in the State. PC App. at p.2-3. What Mr. Simpson's analysis really shows is that the PCSSD spends 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I substantial money on items other than certified salaries, such as desegregation. The Intervenors contend that the Districts are seeking to take funds from the public school fund that would otherwise go, they claim, to the students of other school districts in Arkansas. Int. Br. at p. 17. The three Districts neither contend for nor do they expect such a result. Rather, they presume, and indeed recommend, continuation of that which has pertained in the past. In the past, the State has transferred the amounts necessary to make desegregation payments from the state general revenue fund and placed those sums in the public school fund for distribution to these three Districts. Thus, monies appropriated for education are not simply taken from the public school fund. State App. at p. 360 1 B. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OP' REVIEW. The PCSSD addresses the Appellant's points here only as necessary, in Point II below. II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN P'AVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. The Intervenors correctly point out that the standard in the Eighth Circuit is that a genuine issue of material fact must exist and if there is a disputed fact, the disputed fact must be material and the dispute genuine. Int. Br. at p. 7. [emphasis supplied] It is the latter point upon which the District focuses, i.e, the purported dispute is not, at bottom, genuine. The State contends there were two \"core factual matters\" disputed by the State, and that because they were disputed summary judgment should have been denied. State Br. at p. 17. The first \"dispute\" was whether or not the money the state previously paid outside the formula as teacher retirement and health insurance matching is now being distributed within the new formula. Because it was so obvious that this is the case, it was unreasonable for the State to dispute this fact. First, simple mathematics prove the point. As the district court observed, the public school fund was forecast to rise by more than $200,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 above the levels which existed at the time of the Lake View decision. State Ad. at p. 7. When the 1995-96 appropriations for teacher retirement 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ($130,000,000) and health insurance ($42,815,000) are combined, the sum equals $172,815,000. Subtracting this sum from the $200,000,000 increase still leaves $27,185,000. Combining this with the forecasted increase leaves $227,185,000 over and above the last appropriation that included teacher retirement and health insurance as line item appropriations. Thus, clearly the money represented by the prior line item appropriations is still being appropriated, just in a different fashion. If simple mathematics do not suffice, then the admission of Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) should. She testified that dollars that were previously part of identified funds were consolidated into the new equalization funding scheme. State Ad. at p. 8. This admission by the top financial official at the State Department of Education is binding upon the State pursuant to Fed. Rules of Evidence 80l(d)2. Further, as noted by the District Court, the State's own budget documents demonstrate the same treatment. (\"Transportation Aid ... eliminated as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula\"; \"[e]liminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization formula\"; [e]liminated all at-risk funding ... and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid\"). State Ad. at p. 8. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In addition, the District Court correctly credited the uncontradicted testimony of Dr. Benny Gooden for the same proposition. Dr. Gooden heads the Fort Smith School District, a lead intervenor in this appeal. State Ad. at p. 8. The district court also properly relied upon the testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the lead school district in the original State funding formula litigation, Alma v. Dupree. Finally, the State's funding expert in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller, likewise stated his belief that the money previously appropriated for teacher retirement and health insurance was put into the pool of money that would flow through the new equalization formula. State Ad. at p. 9. In the face of this, it is readily apparent that the money that previously was paid outside the formula by the State for teacher retirement matching and health insurance simply became part of the new overall appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per student basis under the new formula. For the State to claim otherwise in the face of such evidence is to simply elevate form over substance. In the final analysis, the issue of whether these sums continued to be appropriated or not is really not a \"factual\" matter at all. One of the tasks of the District Court was to interpret Act 917 and the accompanying appropriation legislation, Act 1194. She did so and her interpretation, that the appropriation continues, is a legal conclusion. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This is consistent with the position the State took during the Workers Compensation hearing. In the midst of continuing questioning of Dr. Shaver concerning his opinion as to whether or not Worker's Compensation was a program under the Settlement Agreement, the State finally objected as follows: MR. HUMPHRIES: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this continued line of questioning. The -- the argument is a legal one that the Settlement Agreement says that the State share that the State shall continue to pay its share of any programs which -- for -- for which the districts now receive state funding. And that's a legal argument. THE COURT: Well, I will certainly sustain that objection ... PC App. p. 16. Clearly, the phrasing of the objection was not limited to Worker's Compensation but to \"any programs\". Distribution Per ADM The other core \"fact\" identified by the State concerns the manner of distribution of funds under the new act. The State contends now that the Districts contended below that the new formula distributes funds on a pure per student basis. State Br. at p. 17. The State argues that because funds are distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends in part, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I While the State may misapprehend the argument of the Districts below, suffice it to say that the district court did not. Indeed, in her February 18, 1997 order, the district court quoted from Arkansas budget documents for the proposition that: Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funding to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas. State Ad. at p. 8. [emphasis supplied] that: Later in the same order, the district court plainly stated 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. State Ad. at p. 9. [emphasis supplied] The Districts do not contend that the distribution is a pure per student distribution as contended by the State. Rather, it is the contention of the Districts that distributing such funds through a formula which is driven by ADM (Average Daily Membership) discriminates against them because it ignores actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. Further, the State is correct when it states at page 18 of its brief that: Because it is distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. State Br. at p. 18. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Indeed, this aspect of the new funding formula exacerbates the problem even more for these Districts since they vote high millage which further reduces their State aid under the new scheme. PC App. p. 52. What really matters, however, is that the District Court understood the state's point. However the State may now mischaracterize the position of the Districts below, the fact remains that the District Court understood and articulated the distribution distinctions now being made by the State. Stated another way, that which the State contends was a matter of fact in dispute between it and the Districts below was not a factor in the District Courts' decision. The record made in the Worker Compensation's hearing is instructive here. The state's witness in that proceeding, Dr. Robert Shaver2 , testified that prior to the change in the law requiring school districts to fund their own Worker's Compensation program, the state simply received a bill from the Worker's Compensation Commission and paid it on behalf of the school districts by withdrawing money from the public school fund. PC App. p. 11. He further testified that in 1993-94, the last year the state paid these costs directly, the claims I experience was $5,200,000. PC App. p. 12. The previous year the experience was $8,200,000. PC App. p. 13. While the record for I that proceeding contains only \"rounded off\" numbers, the average I I I I of those two years is still $6,700,000. Thus, it would 2Dr. Shaver was the top financial official at the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. p. 17 and 18. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I reasonably appear that the State's appropriation of 6.6 million dollars that has been characterized by the State as \"seed money\" in its brief (State Br. p. 19) was in actuality an average of the two years immediately preceding the change in the law. Thus it would appear the appropriation that the State made several years ago, and continues to make, for Worker's compensation assistance is virtually identical to how it has handled Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance. It is still distributing the same respective sums of money but because the distribution is now driven primarily by ADM's rather than cost, the three districts in Pulaski County are shortchanged. The State's persistence in seeking to shift from a cost basis, which was fair and rational as respects these three districts, to an essentially ADM driven basis, makes the legal analysis for the present appeal not logically different from the analysis that pertained in the Worker's Compensation appeal. This new manner of distribution results in these three districts receiving proportionally less money for these state mandated costs than most other districts in the state of Arkansas. Once again, the District Court's ruling on this matter necessarily represented her interpretation of the distribution mechanism outlined in Act 917 resulting in her legal conclusion concerning the operation of State law. Thus, in the final analysis, the State cannot in reality present a case of disputed facts since the District Court was essentially making reasoned interpretations of State statutes. 11 I I I I I I I III. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OP SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AP'PIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. At page 10 of their brief, the Intervenors assert that: By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled. (Citing Dupree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 (1983). Continuing, they contend that: However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. (Citing Dupree and Lake View.) Int. Br. at p. 10. I I This argument was advanced in this case by the State in the I Court of Appeals years ago. The en bane court in 1985 disposed I I I I I I I I I of that argument in the following language: [Fn.l] The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, substantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the State, DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983), and with a statute implementing this opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann.  80-850.10 - 80-850.22. This argument is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2, the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. (Arnold, J. concurring.) 778 F.2d at 437. What also appears to be lost upon the intervenors is the fact that the PCSSD is not on a par with the intervening school districts. The Intervenors have not been required to 12 I I I I I I I I I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I desegregate. The PCSSD desegregation budget alone is $12,500,000, representing 11.07% of its total budget. PC App. p. 88. It no longer receives the stream of payments from the State that the Settlement Agreement provided. That has ended. What the State should not be permitted to end is it's commitment to continue to make the payments for programs as promised in the Settlement Agreement. While the State pretends that its funding for Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance has ended, the programs most surely have not. All that has changed is that the PCSSD must now pay the bills and that the State no longer provides a method of distribution for those monies that comports with the Settlement Agreement. The distribution of what used to be funds paid directly for teacher retirement and health insurance is, in operation, identical to the seed money analysis previously made by this Court and the district court as regards workers' compensation. In the latter instance, the distribution was simply made to the school districts based on enrollment. Here, the distribution, while made through the new formula, is still done in a way in which students (ADM) drive the distribution rather than cost. While it is true that certain features of the formula operate to raise or lower the amounts districts now receive for teacher retirement or health insurance, the fact remains that the distribution is student driven. The legal infirmities and violations of the settlement argument are further addressed beginning at page 21. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Intervenors' Employee Cost Argument The intervenors, in particular, persist in challenging what has become the law of the case. They continue to attack the previous findings of the District Court, as accepted by this Court (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 at 1018 (8th Cir. 1996)) that the three Pulaski Districts are employee heavy and have high employee cost. While the Intervenors rely only upon an affidavit that the PCSSD has had no opportunity to contest or explore, (as we discuss further beginning at page 15) the fact remains that the District Court had direct testimony from the State's witness in the Worker's Compensation hearing to this effect. In an exchange that is part of the record on appeal from the Worker's Compensation appeal, the District Court heard the following from Dr. Shaver: Q. And you would agree that of the districts in the state, Pulaski and Little Rock are singled out, if you will, by operation of this statute and this premium structure to pay the two highest premiums? A. I -- by by virtue of its number of employees and salaries that would seem to be the case. THE COURT: Yes. By virtue of the number of employees and the salary, but you're giving them money based on the number of students. THE WITNESS: That's true. THE COURT: Yes, that's their problem. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. p. 14. At the same hearing, the State acknowledged that the record in this case is a continuing one. PC App. p. 15. Dr. Simpson need not have gone to the trouble of going to the Arkansas Department of Education for his information since it was already a part of this case by October 1, 1993. At a hearing held on the PCSSD budget that date, counsel for the teacher's union tried the same tact attempted by Dr. Simpson in his affidavit. After first positing to Dr. Stewart3 the percentage of the total budget committed to teacher compensation, which percentages ranged from 54% to 56%, the following exchange occurred in open court between counsel and Dr. Stewart of the PCSSD: Q. Now, those figures pretty dramatically illustrate that the teachers in this district are not getting these big pay increases as far as a percentage of the total budget of Pulaski County, are they? A. I don't think that's what those figures represent at all, Mr. Roachell. Q. What do you -- what do you think they represent? A. Well, they represent exactly what you said they represent. Those numbers that you just read represent the total amount of the district budget, the total percentage amount of the district budget that has been spent on teacher salaries, and to turn that into what 3Dr. Stewart is the chief financial officer of the PCSSD. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I you said it meant is totally ridiculous because that's not what it meant at all. PC App. at pp. 4 and 5. In the same hearing, it was established that the PCSSD then ranked #6 in the State out of 311 districts in average teacher's salaries as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. at p. 2. Accordingly, all that can be divined from Dr. Simpson's analysis is that because the PCSSD has one of the highest average teacher salary payments in the State, it must be spending an extraordinary amount of money on other things, such as desegregation. The point was driven home by Dr. Stewart at the same hearing: Q. For instance, in looking at this -- and I'm just going to do a couple of these, your Honor -- the Rogers School District in the what some people refer to as the growing -- located in the growing affluence of northwest Arkansas ranks behind the Pulaski District at position No. 8? A. You got the list. Q. All right. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Rogers, Arkansas? A. No. In fact, having worked in that county for seven years, definitely no. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q. We rank just -- we rank just behind Springdale, although perhaps with these recent adjustment, we're ahead of them. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Springdale? A. No. Q. Perhaps to state the obvious, would that translate into meaning they're not spending any money on desegregation? A. Yes. PC App. p. 3. It is clear that the District Court understood the significance of all this. When the District Court was questioning the Union's witness at the October, 1993 hearing, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: The cost of living and the comparable wage patterns. Do you ascribe any weight at all to the fact that PACT is a signatory to this very expensive Settlement Agreement? THE WITNESS: I don't disagree with that. Help me out. I'm -- I'm not sure -- THE COURT: Should that be -- I mean, should I consider that or should the district consider that? When you say you consider three things in determining the pay raise, one is ability to pay, two are comparable wage patterns, and three is cost of living. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE COURT: And I imagine that these comparable wage patterns in many districts are -- the districts aren't facing what this district is facing. THE WITNESS: I -- I -- THE COURT: They don't have to come to Susan Webber Wright's court -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. You -- THE COURT: -- and be dressed down -' THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE COURT: and they don't have to go along with this burdensome Desegregation Plan. THE WITNESS: I understand. THE COURT: And PACT was part of this. THE WITNESS: I understand that. THE COURT: Well, should I consider that? I think I should -- THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: -- quite frankly. PC App. pp. 6 and 7. The Intervenors' Lake View Argument The Intervenors spend much of their brief analyzing the State court decision in Lake View apparently under the assumption that the Districts contended in federal court in the present proc "}],"pages":{"current_page":21,"next_page":22,"prev_page":20,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":240,"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}}]}}