{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1706","title":"Court filings: District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","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":["2000-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Magnet schools","Education and state","School districts","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"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/1706"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["129 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 STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 12 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. I, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 ED MAY 1 5 2000 OftlCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") filed a motion seeking approval of a revised monitoring plan [ docket no. 3327]. The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") responded in opposition [docket nos. 3340 \u0026 3334], and ADE replied [docket no. 3350]. After careful consideration, the Court determines ADE's motion should be denied. I. The parties' settlement agreement, Part ill.A., in pertinent part, states: The State shall be required (as a non-party) to monitor, through the ADE, the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts. . . . Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties. It is being done to ensure that the state will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State. A State plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education will be submitted to the parties within 60 days following the execution of the settlement agreement. In 1989, Mr. H. William Allen, on behalf of ADE, submitted the monitoring plan referenced in Part ill.A above. Since then, the parties have referred to the monitoring plan as the \"Allen Letter.\" ADE moves this Court to replace the Allen Letter with a revised monitoring  plan, entitled the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP\"). II. Regarding the State's obligations under the Allen Letter, this Court stated: This plan goes beyond monitoring compensatory education in the three Pulaski County school districts and includes many more areas which ADE promised to extensively monitor and evaluate, including magnet schools, M-to-M transfers, and magnet school transportation. Likewise, the settlement agreement includes other obligations undertaken by ADE in addition to its financial agreement with the parties and, in its monitoring plan, ADE reaffirmed its commitment to undertake extensive monitoring that would fulfill those obligations. ADE never changed its monitoring plan or moved to change the settlement agreement. Therefore, the obligations contained in these two documents [the settlement agreement and monitoring plan] are the obligations to which ADE has committed. 1 Thus the Allen letter contains substantive terms of a consent decree, which relate to the vindication of constitutional rights. Disputed modifications of such terms are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications. See Appeal of Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F.2d 253, 258 (1991). When parties to a consent decree oppose modification, the moving party must show that (1) a significant change in fact or law warrants revision and (2) the proposed modification is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 112 S.Ct. 748, 765 (1992). ADE makes four points in support ofDMAP. First, ADE notes that since 1989, the 1 Docket no. 2045, page 2. 2 I I I I I - Court has withdrawn supervision over various portions of the Districts' desegregation plans, and LRSD and PCSSD have revised their plans. While changes in the Districts' desegregation plans may warrant revision of the Allen Letter, ADE fails to explain how it has addressed those changes with the proposed revised monitoring plan. Second, ADE maintains its revisions are needed because \"one of the major reasons the State agreed to extensively monitor the Districts was that the Districts were scheduled to receive millions of dollars ... for 'compensatory education' programs ... [and] those additional funds are no longer being provided to the Districts.\"2 ADE does not specify how DMAP responds to the cessation of state funding for compensatory education. Furthermore, the Court can find no provisions contained in the Allen Letter delineating specific monitoring and reporting obligations related solely to compensatory education funding.3 Third, ADE states that when the State submitted the Allen Letter, the Eighth Circuit had yet to establish the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"),4 but ADE fails to explain how the proposed plan is tailored to resolve any issues related to ODM monitoring. 2 Docket no. 3328, page 2. 3 The Allen Letter states: The primary focus of the process shall be a continuous assessment of the remedial effectiveness of programs supported partially or fully by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and services receiving special funding include: 1. Compensatory Education 2. Magnet Schools 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers 4 ADE does not contend that ODM monitoring supplants ADE's monitoring obligations. 3 Fourth, ADE emphasizes that the parties have expressed a need for more focused monitoring and assistance from ADE than called for in the Allen Letter and that ADE consulted the parties and ODM in developing the revised monitoring plan. However, two parties, LRSD and Joshua, oppose approval of the revised plan. The Court acknowledges that changed circumstances may warrant revision of ADE's monitoring plan but finds that ADE has failed to demonstrate that DMAP is tailored to address the changed circumstances. Consequently, the Court must deny ADE's motion. m. Joshua opposes approval ofDMAP on grounds the plan is vaguely worded. Additionally, Joshua asserts the proposed plan would duplicate reporting functions already carried out by ODM and the Districts5 and contends ADE should assist the Districts in a \"hands on manner.\"6 According to LRSD, ADE's current monitoring reports consist of reformatted data, originally provided to ADE by LRSD. The District argues that ODM provides sufficient, independent monitoring, rendering ADE's monitoring and reporting activities superfluous. LRSD understands the original objectives of ADE monitoring to be (1) ensuring fiscal accountability to the tax payers of Arkansas (in light of the State's obligation to fund compensatory education programs) and (2) involving the State in improving achievement disparities. Because State funding for compensatory education has ceased, LRSD contends State's role \"should shift from one of monitoring to one of active participation in the district's 5 The Court notes that Part ill.A of the settlement agreement states, \"Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties.\" 6 Docket no. 3334. 4 efforts to eliminate the achievement disparity.\"7 LRSD concludes this Court should require a meeting between ADE and LRSD for the purpose ofreaching an agreement regarding the State's role in eliminating achievement disparities. Additionally, LRSD proposes that the Court modify the parties' settlement agreement to increase the financial obligations of the State. Specifically, LRSD requests the State pay for the cost of ODM for the current year and future years and provide the Districts additional resources in the form of personnel or funding equivalent to resources ADE planned to devote to DMAP. This Court remains mindful that \"we are dealing with a settlement\"8 and disagrees that the absence of state funding for compensatory education should shift the State's monitoring role to one of active participation in eliminating achievement disparities. As previously explained, the Allen Letter \"goes beyond monitoring compensatory education ... and includes many more areas which ADE promised to extensively monitor and evaluate, including magnet schools, Mto- M transfers, and magnet school transportation.\"9 Nor does the Court find that increasing the State's financial obligations will resolve problems related to the State's monitoring obligations. A consent decree is a final judgment that  may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires, and this Court finds that the record before the Court does not justify increasing the State's financial obligations. See Rufo, 112 S.Ct. 7 Docket 3340, 16. 8 Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (8th Cir. 1990). 9 Id. 5 - at 764 (\"Once a court has determined that changed circumstances warrant a modification in a consent decree, the focus should be on whether the proposed modification is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances. A court should do no more, for a consent decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires.\"). As for requiring ADE to negotiate with LRSD, this Court strongly encourages the parties to proceed diligently with negotiations regarding ADE's monitoring obligations, but declines ordering such negotiations at this time. If the parties are unable to reach an agreementregarding the State's monitoring role, upon proper motion, the Court will hold hearings on the matter and take action necessary to ensure the State's monitoring obligations are carried out efficiently and effectively. IV. For the reasons stated, it is hereby ordered that ADE' s motion for approval of a revised monitoring plan be DENIED [docket no. 3327]. IT IS so ORDERED nns J)l)A Y OF MAY, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH1S OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPS. ,E Wl:?;1 RULE 5e ANn 79(~ FRCP ON  (,h/JQ !Y '- - 6 MAY 18 2000 tlfiCEOF 9f-5E6RE6Allll IIJ!l10RIII IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTI.,E 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, * * KATIIERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER FILED EAsTMRsriio1sTR1cr COURT DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 16 2000 The Court has received the proposed 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 budgets for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The budgets and a cover letter are attached to this Order for the parties' review. Parties have to and including fifteen days from entry of this Order to file objections regarding the proposed budgets. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS _/L~ AY OF MAY, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH1S OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN_ COUPLWiE WITH RULE 58 AH~a) FRCP , ON 5=:- J '7- o-v ev ________ .!!:L .   Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor April 20, 2000 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376~200 Fax (501) 371--0100 ODM budgets for two years, 1999-00 and 2000-01, are attached for the parties' review and your approval. Because one of the school districts did not furnish us a final October 1 student enrollment count (upon which we base the apportionment of charges to the districts) until last month, we are issuing the current-year budget late in the year. By accompanying it with next year's budget as well, we begin a new practice that will enable us to issue our annual budgets in advance of the new fiscal year . From now on, we will propose our budget for the upcoming year before the close of the current fiscal year, using an estimated total for revenue and expenditures, along with the current-year enrollment numbers (which we use as the basis for the portion each district contributes to the ODM budget). Then, when we know actual revenues and expenditures and the new October 1 enrollment numbers, we will adjust each district's contribution accordingly. The format of the budgets follows that of previous budget documents, including annotation to explain revenue calculations; budget category definitions; and budget allocations and anticipated expenditures by category for 1999-00 and 2000-01 . Note that the 1999-00 budget is only 1. 7 6% higher than that of the previous year, and that the 2000-01 budget is a 2.53% increase over that of the previous year. Salary increases for ODM staff are 3.29% per year, which is the prevailing annual experience step increase on the salary scales of the three local districts. We have continued to contain our expenditures such that they are below the projected annual budget at year's end. As is our practice, we credit that difference proportionately to each of the school districts according to their pro-rated contributions to our budget, a return that averages over 12%. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely yours, . ~~ Ann S. Brown Enc.    OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING: BUDGETS FOR 1999-00 AND 2000-01 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Credit* NLRSD Credit* PCSSD Credit* Interest  1998-99 BUDGET 200,000.00 219,128.14 37,714.98 81 ,227.78 13,929.95 169,293.99 30,344.16 0.00 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 2000-01 ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 219,128.14 232,137.33 232,137.33 244,131.66 37,714.98 36,967.69 36,967.69 34,175.51 81 ,227.78 82,836.58 82,836.58 87,116.67 13,929.95 13,191.66 13,191.66 12,195.29 169,293.99 172,300.09 172,300.09 181 ,202.67 30,344.16 27,438.65 27,438.65 25,366.20 8,788.39 0.00 5,407.00 0.00  !zje~jtz~~i 1 :: z:i: ;,ijz-- t;,1:  :.-1.-.-.,:-:;!:;:::::::t:::::t i;,ee : i ij1n1;19  Every budget cycle, ODM credits each district a pro rata proportion of the unspent amount of the previous year's budget. We apply this amount toward the curr~nt budget allocation. See annotated budget. EXPENDITURES 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 2000-01 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET Communications 9,180.00 9,157.28 10,000.00 9,832.00 10,000.00 Dues and Fees 3,300.00 3,320.67 3,850.00 3,827.00 4,000.00 Equipment 6,339.00 6,337.94 3,000.00 1,905.00 3,000.00 Food Services 200.00 93.17 200.00 133.00 200.00 Management Services 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 Periodicals 400.00 334.97 450.00 436.00 450.00 Printing and Binding 6,000.00 4,625.75 6,000.00 4,606.00 6,000.00 Prof. and Tech. Services 26,497.00 6,207.50 26,497.00 1,847.00 26,497.00 Rent 50,917.00 50,916.67 51,935.00 51,935.00 52,890.00 Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 720.37 1,200.00 627.00 1,000.00 Resource Library 500.00 28.40 250.00 0.00 200.00 Salaries 492,614.00 474,173.79 508,159.00 482,159.00 523,937.00 Benefits 125,122.00 103,788.82 124,431.00 116,009.96 127,114.00 Staff Development 1,000.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,025.00 1,000.00 Supplies 7,750.00 7,713.27 7,750.00 7,729.00 7,750.00 Travel 18,000.00 14,090.83 18,000.00 15,825.00 18,000.00 Insurance 820.00 820.00 650.00 646.00 650.00  LRSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGETS FOR 1999-00 AND 2000-01 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor ... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis ... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring...  10/1/99 o/o of Total 1999-00 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Allocation 1998-99 Credit (Budget not spent) 1999-00 Budget Payment 2000-01 Budget Allocation 25,116 47.64 269,105.02 36,967.69 232,137.33 278,307.16 1999-00 Estimated Credit* (Budget not spent) 34,175.51 NLRSD 8,960 17.00 96,028.24 13,191 .66 82,836.58 99,311.96 12,195.29 2000-01 Estimated Budget Payment* 244,131.66 87,116.67  PCSSD 18,638 35.36 199,738.74 27,438.65 172,300.09 206,568.88 25,366.20 181,202.67  State of AR N/A NIA 200,000.00 NIA 200,000.00 200,000.00 NIA 200,000.00 - ::::i::i:1~w11i;::::::::i::::::i11~l~i1:1 :111111:.11: 1JFt,1iij;,i:i1 ::iiji~iii;qg:: :z~1i11:.1g} ::::::i1~iifi  :11,iil1~11 *Because the 2000-01 budget has been prepared before the close of the 1999-00 fiscal year, we have estimated the 1999-00 credits to the districts and the 2000-01 payments due from the districts. After the close of the current fiscal year, we will notify each district of the exact amount due for their share of ODM's 2000-01 budget, incorporating each district's exact credit. Also, adjustments in the apportioned payments for each district in 2000-01 will be made to correspond with the October 1, 2000 enrollment count. Descnbed below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the charts above, that we used to determine each district's contnbution to ODM's budgets: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contnbution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share (or estimated share) of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contnbutes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified at the close of the current fiscal year of the exact amount due for their share ofODM's budget.    EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 1998-99 Budget 9,180.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures The budget increase accommodates the rising costs of postage and basic services for various communications, such as telephone and internet. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 1998-99 Budget 3,300.00 1998-99 Expenditures 3,320.67 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 3,827.00 The budget increase gives more staff members the opportunity to participate in regional and national conferences. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additionai and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 1998-99 Budget 6,339.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures During 1999-00, we will replace a laser printer, color printer, scanner, and printing server and hub; during 2000-01, we will upgrade two computers.    Food Services: Expenditures for food or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. 1998-99 Budget 200.00 1998-99 Expenditures 93.17 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 133.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 1998-99 Budget 1,500.00 1998-99 Expenditures 0.00 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 1998-99 Budget 400.00 1998-99 Expenditures 334.97 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 436.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 1998-99 Budget 6,000.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures We are able to contain the cost of this budget category by doing most printing inhouse.    Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1998-99 Budget 26,497.00 1998-99 Expenditures 6,207.50 Mansas Financial Services Temporary help/specialized services 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 23,497.00 3,000.00 26,497.00 To date, ODM has not needed Arkansas Financial Services (AFS) to complete the terms of a previous agreement. However, because services ultimately may be required, we are electing to maintain the AFS agreement and, thus, have budgeted an allotment for AFS. Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 1998-99 Budget 50,917.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures Per our lease agreement, the 1999-2000 and 2000-0 l budgets reflect a 2% per year increase in rent. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 1998-99 Budget 1,500.00 1998-99 Expenditures 720.37 1999-00 Estimated [!ti\u0026 IJ i.i~Jii Expenditures 627.00 Resource Libr~ry: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 1998-99 Budget 500.00 1998-99 Expenditures 28.40 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures    Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 1998-99 Budget 492,614.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures Salary changes between 1998-99 and 1999-00, as well as between 1999-00 and 2000-01 , reflect a 3.29% increase, which is comparable to the annual step increase in the three Pulaski County school districts. Salaries: Name of Employaa 1998-99 Salary 1999-00 Salary 2000-01 Salary Ann Brown 104,164.00 107,591 .00' 111 ,131 .00 Melissa Guldin 2 48,533.00 50,130.00 51 ,779.00 Gene Jones 3 50,858.00 52,724.00 54,373.00 Norman Marshall 60,666.00 62,662.00 64,724.00 MaroiePowell 60,666.00 62,662.00 64,724.00 Horace Smith 60,666.00 62,662.00 64,724.00 Research Associate4 26,000.00 26,000.00 26,000.00 Pollv Ramer 45,537.00 47,035.00 48,582.00 Linda Brvant 25,252.00 26,083.00 26,941 .00 Jackie Banks5 10,272.00 10,610.00 10,959.00 Ill ;;, ::: 1I::::Illlilt1il I tt:iiroaasttM @ iitti s2a~ Jon 1Ann Brown's last salary increase was in 1993-94. 2Melissa Guldin works 4/5 time. 3Gene Jones works 4/5 time. Mr. Jones elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 4Position not filled. 5Jackie Banks works 3/5 time .    Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 1998-99 Budget 125,122.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 116,009.96 Below is a breakdown by category of each emoloyee's 1999-00 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Allowance Security ment lzatlon Ins. Indemnity Brown 1,800.00 6,310.57 13,126.92 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Guldin 1,200.00 3,926.75 6,159.60 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Jones 960.00 4,106.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Marshall 1,200.00 4,885.44 7,663.44 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Powell 1,200.00 4,885.44 7,663.44 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Smith 1,200.00 4,885.44 7,663.44 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Ramer 0.00 3,598.18 5,644.20 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 0.00 1,995.35 3,129.96 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 Banks 0.00 811 .67 1,273.20 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 Short Total Term Benefits 62.88 23,831.63 62.88 13,880.49 0.00 5,066.83 62.88 16,343.02 62.88 16,343.02 62.88 16,343.02 62.88 8,421 .04 62.88 11,836.52 62.88 7,702.89 62.88 4,662.45 ,,, :::::::::::::: ::1aB:I I wii~il  :ooij1i;m  Muir :ati3afoiE i::::::::::::::::::::,:::,:-:-:- :,:,:,:,:=?:::=,}?:,:,:::,:}:,;;:,;;:/: --:-::::::::: ::rn: oo.g112  Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's 2000-01 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment lzatlon Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Brown 1,800.00 6,361 .90 13,551.72 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 24,307.76 Guldin 1,200.00 4,052.89 6,357.48 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 14,204.51 Jones 960.00 4,232.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,192.97 Marshall 1,200.00 5,043.19 7,910.88 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 16,748.21 Powell 1,200.00 5,043.19 7,910.88 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 16,748.21 Smith 1,200.00 5,043.19 7,910.88 2 233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 16,748.21 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 8,421 .04 Ramer 0.00 3,716.52 5,829.84 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 12,140.50 Bryant 0.00 2,060.99 3,232.92 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 62.88 7,871 .49 0.00 838.36 1 315.08 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 62.88 4,731 .02    Staff Development: Services performed by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. 1998-99 Budget 1,000.00 1998-99 Expenditures 500.00 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 1,025.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 1998-99 Budget 7,750.00 1998-99 Expenditures 7,713.27 1999-00 Estimated 1!:ii~-~~Ufgiltf/:] Expenditures 7,729.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 1998-99 Budget 18,000.00 1998-99 Expenditures 14,090.83 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 15,825.00 Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 1998-99 Budget 820.00 1998-99 Expenditures 820.00 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 646.00 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT / E~ASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN 2 2000 Off\\GEOf t\u0026GRfGAllON MONITORING  WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for May, 2000 .  ' _j\\ffr/ . :~/ .-.:~. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, uite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each morith, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1725","title":"Court filings: District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) defendants' response to motion to extend time and for referral; District Court, motion to substitute a complete copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","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":["2000-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) defendants' response to motion to extend time and for referral; District Court, motion to substitute a complete copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"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/1725"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["76 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.  EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903 - 1977 ) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1'1 13-1991 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G . LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN O DAVI S JU DY SIMMONS H ENR Y KIMBERLY WOOO TUCKER RAY F CO X. JR . GORDON S . RATHER . JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS OA VIO M. POWELL ROGER A . GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C . PRICE CHARLES T . COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER. JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0. ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBSITE : www .wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY M. TOCO WOOD Wri ter ' s Direcl Dial No . 501-21 2-1273 mjones@wlj .com April 11, 2000 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark TROY A PRI CE PA TRICIA A. SI EVERS JAMES M. MOODY . JR KA THRYN A PR YOR J . MARK DAVIS CL AIRE SHOWS HANCOCK K EV IN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JA CKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R . LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM K YLE R. WILSON C . TAO BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLL I S M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAUL KNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTI N T. ALLEN 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 APR 1 2 2000 OfflGEOf DESEGREGATIOtl MORJTORJNQ Enclosed is a copy of the PCSSD defendants' response to motion to extend time and for referral which is being filed today. Cordially, WRIGHTEDSLEIY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP c?~ M. Sam I Jones, Ill MSJ/ao Encl. 169467-v1 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. THE PCSSD DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE ECEIVED APR 1 2 2000 QffiCEOi OESESREGAD ~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME AND FOR REFERRAL The PCSSD defendants for their response to motion to extend time and for referral, state: 1. Pursuant to the rules of this Court, Joshua's time for the submission of a fee petition began to run on July 19, 1999 (docket no. 3282]. Thus, Joshua's time for submitting a fee petition has long since expired. 2. Since July 19, 1999, the activities of the parties have revolved around the PCSSD's submission of Plan 2000 to which, as this court has previously found, Joshua did not object and to which no member of the Joshua Class submitted either comments or objections. 3. While the PCSSD defendants thus respectfully submit that there are no fee issues that can be now timely advanced by Joshua, nevertheless, the PCSSD has no objection to submission of the issue to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, but it will be the position of the PCSSD, if such referral occurs, that 169379-v1 any colorable claim for attorney's fees by Joshua is time-barred pursuant to the rules of this Court, this District and this Circuit. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD defendants pray that this Court enter an order consistent with this response and for all proper relief. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By-:-:---=--r-,--r.---:-:--:-=~c+------- M. At Sc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April I(, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 169379-v1 2 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON , P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL, P .A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A.  DERICK S. URSERY, P.A. ARE. DAVIS , JR ., P.A. ES C. CLARK, JR ., P.A. OMAS P. LEGGETT , P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM Ill , P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR ., P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P.A . J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P.A . DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER , P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill , P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A . WADDELL , JR . . P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER , P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT 8 . BEACH. JR .. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER , JR ., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376 -2147 April I 8, IECEIVED ~ICE0F 0t5.i:9rur\u0026rriCN MONffOHING Mr. Sam Jones SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, l' .A. TONIA P. JONES, P .A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P .A . DAVID M. GRAF, P .A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR . , P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY 0 . TA YLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRANC. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, l' .A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR . ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH o, COUNS EL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS , P .A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO, (501) 370 -3323 Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - Hand Delivered Desegration Monitor Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 323 Center Street 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et. al.; Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et. al. USDC, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown \u0026 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Motion to Substitute a Complete CopyofLRSD' s Interim Compliance Report which we are filing today. As indicated in the motion, attachments 1 - 4 ofLRSD's interim compliance report were inadvertently omitted during the printing process. We are enclosing attachments 1 - 4 which you can insert in the original copy of the report served on you. F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSDlpcssd-brown et ,I It. wpd Ms. Brown \u0026 Gentlemen April 18,2000 Page2 If you would rather receive a second and complete copy of the report, please do not hesitate to call, and we will try to provide one. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\pcssd-brown et al lt.wpd 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 KNTGHT, ET AL MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE COPY OF LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT RE.Cif~~ili APR 19 2000 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report states: 1. On March 15, 2000, LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan . 2. Since that time, it has come to LRSD's atte~tion that attachments 1 through 4 of the Interim Compliance Report were inadvertently omitted from the report during printing. 3. A complete copy of the report, including attachments 1 through 4, are attached to this Motion. LRSD respectfully requests that this report be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the complete copy of LRSD ' s Interim Compliance Report attached hereto be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000  400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY,pe~ ~ ofu;c. '~y,J. 'r21a2) 2 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 18th day of April, 2000. 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 Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 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 C. Fendley, Jr. ~ 3 --- - - ----- ------ - - - - EDUCATION: Ph.D. MSW BA VITAE TERRENCE J. ROBERTS, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology - S.outhem Illinois University, 1976, Psychology - University of California, Los Angeles, 1970 - California State University, Los Angeles, 1967 LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: California State Licensed Psychologist, Lie. #PSY8892 California State Licensed Social Worker, Lie. #5600 EXPERIENCE: Attachment 1 Chief executive officer for Terrence J. Roberts \u0026 Associates, a management consultation firm active in California since 1975. A dynamic group with a wide range of skills and professional abilities. Workshops and Seminars in the areas of: Stress Management Effective Communication Managing Human Relationships Employment Transition Team Building Management Skills Managing Racial and Ethnic Diversity Self Growth and Development Conflict Resolution Developing Multicultural Awareness Employee Evaluation Staff Development Created training programs and materials for employees in the department. Participated in program delivery, evaluation and revision. Provided social welfare services to children and families in the child welfare division. CONSULTATION\\PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES General psychology and consultation practice office in Pasadena, Ca. Practice includes psychological assessment, psychotherapy for individuals; families, and groups, and psychological consultation to education, business and industry. MEMBERSHIPS: Member, American Psychological Association Board Member, African American Cultural Institute Board Member, Eisenhower World Affairs Institute Board Member, Economic Resources Corporation PUBLICATIONS,;_ __ \"Managing Trial Stress,\" in Jonathan M. Purver, Douglas R. Young, and James J. Davis III, Trial Handbook For California Lawyers, Bancroft-'Whitney Co., 1987. - __ \"Understanding Choice: Gateway to Sound Mental Health,\" Journal of Mental Health Administration, Vol.9, No.l, 1978. __ \"Social Welfare in Black America,\" in Cox; et al, eds. Introduction to Black America:A Cultural Perspective, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974. AWARDS: Spingarn Medal, 1957 Annual award presented by NAACP to that person or persons making outstanding .contributions to the area of human rights. Robert S. Abbott Memorial Award, 1958 Annual award presented to those who do most to extend the frontiers of democracy. Outstanding Teacher of the Year, College of Human Resources Southern Illinois University, 1974. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Award, 1982 Award commemorating twenty-fifth anniversary of \"Little Rock Nine's\" integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Southern Christian Leadership Conference Women Martin Luther King, Jr. \"Drum Major for Justice\" Award, 1995 Presented in Atlanta, Georgia. REFERENCES: Available upon request. '--- --- ---- - - Consultation services provided to: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Medical Center Cedars Sinai Hospital Children's Bureau of Southern California  Claremont Graduate School Cleveland College of Chiropractic Coca-Cola, Mid-Atlantic Division Crown City Medical Episcopal Diocese, Los Angeles Fairfield Community Hospital Heller, Ehrman, White \u0026 McAuliffe Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles Kaiser Foundation King-Drew Medical Center, Los Angeles Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services Oskar J's Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Pacific Union College Pasadena Community College Pasadena Tournament of Roses Pepperdine University Pomona College Redwood Empire Central Service Association Riverside County Children's Services Department Santa Clara Valley Medical Center The Fielding Institute The March of Dimes Foundation TRW University of California, (Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego) Chair, Master's in Psychology Antioch University, Los Angeles 1993 - present Responsibilities of the Chair include developing and overseeing curriculum, coordinating student programs, creating and managing yearly budgets, parti!=ipating in the governance of the University, and hiring and supervising adjunct faculty and staff. Included in the job description as well are- I - --- _J Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major: BRIEF VITA PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross EDUCATION Psychology Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Attachment 2 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Association for Educational Communications \u0026 Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvements, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Swnmer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 1974-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1.985 -Present  Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, Univ. of Memphis, 1995 - Present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Leaming (Undergraduate) Individual Differences and Leaming (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) activities designed to enhance the quality of the program and to maintain connections with psychology programs at schools in the southern California area. Assistant Dean, Student Services UCLA School of Social Welfare 1985-1993 Responsible for overall direction of student services including recruitment, admissions, retention, financial aid, student government, and coordination of both MSW and Ph.D. candidate programs. Supervisory responsibilities for student services assistant and srudent workers. Classroom teaching responsibilities included preparation and delivery of courses in cross-cultural awareness and group conflict and change. Director, Mental Health Services St. Helena Hospital and Health Center Deer Park, CA. 1975-1985 General administrative responsibility for sevent'een bed acute care mental health unit. Duties included staffing, program development, budget allocation, staff development, quality control, coordination of ancillary services, and other related tasks. Served also as \"troubles-shooter\" for other units in the hospital providing assessment and consultation around changes in procedures and personnel. Lectured and led groups in Health Center programs including cardiac, alcohol, and pulmonary rehabilitation; smoking cessation; weight management; and eating disorders. Program Director, Social Work Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 1975 - 1978 Responsible for development of social work curriculum  and coordination of program within a behavioral science department. Instructor, Social Work Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 1972-1975 Taught courses and advised majors in undergraduate social work program. Los Angeles County Children's Service 1. Staff Development Specialist: 1970 - 1972 2. Child Welfare Worker: 1967 - 1970 - -  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Attachment 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971 . Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980; no longer eligible) Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989. 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1995- present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present SCHOLARSHIP Publications in Refereed Journals: Books Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS 115 6 16 170 Ross, S.M., Henry D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., \u0026 Buggey, T. ( 1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, \u0026, 45-71. Ross, S.M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026 Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,~. 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026 Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success for all on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed at Risk, 1., 29-54. Attachment 2 Stringfield, S., \u0026 Ross, S.M. (1997). A \"reflection at time three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, l 151-161. Ross, S. \u0026 Smith, L.J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success for All. Psvcholo12v in the Schools, 3 4, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M.G. Morrison, G.R. \u0026 Ross, S.M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, .ij_, 5-20. Ross, S.M., \u0026 Smith, L.J. (in press). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. Euronean Journal of Intercultural Education. Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., McNelis, M., Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Societv, 3 0 (3), 326- 357. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026 Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 3 0 (3), 326-357. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026 Casey, J.P. (in press). \"Bridging the Gap\": The A effects of the Success for All Programs on elementary school reading W achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to dev~lop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary fos:us of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. In 1992, I was the lead researcher for the school equity study for the State of Alabama Financial Equity Case and am currently lead researcher on a comparable study in Louisiana. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and Dade County (FL) schools and ofprofessional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). - Attachment 3 1998-99 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Percent of African-Americ Total Score: an Students: 1998 1998 Total Score: 1998 Pearson Correlation 1.000 .158 Sig. (2-tailed) .285 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation .158 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed). Students: 1998 .285 N 48 48 :..,1 100 0 0 co O') 0 0 0 0 O') 90  . ..-- 0 0 \u003cJl C c C B Q) C \"O 80  .a C U) B C cCo C C CJ 70 C C c 0 0 0 Q) E C \u003c( ' 0 0 Cco 60 0 0 CJ ..c... . 00 0 0 \u003c( 0 0 0 8 0 B 0 50, c 0 0 Q) C 0 .C..J. 0 Q) 0.. 40 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1998 70 Attachment 4 1999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Percent of African-.A.meric Total Score: an Students: 1999 1999 Total Score: 1999 Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.046 Sig. (2-tailed) .758 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation -.046 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed) .758 Students: 1999 N 48 48 .:1 100 0 0 0 0 0 en 90 , 8 en 00 0 .e,.n.. 0 0 0 t/l 0 c 80 0 0 Q) 0 \"O 0 0 C .2 0 0 Cf) 0 70 0 0 C C1l 0 C tc) C Q) C 0 E 60 C 0 \u003c( C 0 0 I 0 C ro oO 0 (.) 50, 0 0 c 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 c 40 , 0 0 Q) .(...) Q) 0... 30 20 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1999 0 70 - FILED EASTMlN '6',il~',g ~2~~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 2 5 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAME:3!.JV WESTERN DIVISION .By:--'/~j ~~~'7\\RK DEP~ 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 RECEIVED uFFICE orOESEGREGATIOM MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors filed a motion requesting that the Court refer the matter of attorney's fees related to the Pulaski County Special School District's revised desegregation plan to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service [docket no. 3352]. Additionally, Joshua requests that the Court postpone the deadline for filing a petition for attorney's fees until such time as it is determined the parties cannot resolve the matter on a voluntary basis. The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) has no objection to Joshua's request for a referral but asserts the time for submitting a fee petition has expired [docket no. 3354]. In an Order entered February 22, 2000 this Court conditionally approved PCSSD's revised desegregation plan stating, \"Joshua may file a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988.\"1 On March 20, 2000, this Court officially approved the revised plan. Joshua 1 See docket no. 3337. 1 - filed the present motion for referral and extension on March 31, 2000, eleven days after the Court formally approved the revised desegregation plan. Under Local Rule 54.1, Joshua had fourteen days to submit a petition for attorney's fees or a motion to extend the time for submitting such a petition. The Court finds Joshua's motion timely. THEREFORE, for good cause shown, Joshua's motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3352]. The matter of attorney's fees is hereby referred to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service. Additionally, the Court extends the deadline for Joshua to file a petition for attorney's fees until such time as it is determined the matter cannot be resolved between the parties on a voluntary basis. FURTHER, the Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to: Mr. Gus Taylor Community Relations Service U.S. Department of Justice 1100 Commerce Street Dallas, TX 75242 ..f{A.__ ITIS SOORDEREDTHis'2:!i._DAYOF APRIL,2000 UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT 2 r- - FILED t U.S. DISTRICT COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR 2 5 2000 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 The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a motion to substitute a complete copy of the district's interim compliance report for a copy originally filed March 15, 2000.1 The motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3355]. . ~-f(_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS~DAY OF APRIL, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT n-flS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :MP'11J~ULE s~;N~a) FRCP _ 1 Docket no. 3344. ,~ 'jW- / ~ RECErVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 .. , ,; l j _._\\ jU~ Ml', I J. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al . DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance \\,;rh tJ1e Court's order of December 10, 1993, tJ1e Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of tJ1e filing of AD E's Project :\\Ia11agement Tool for April, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PR\"i.'OR Attorney General 1-/~~~i,;- TIMOTHY G. GA :c R #95019 Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June .  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1715","title":"Court filings concerning ADE's motion for approval of monitoring plan, LRSD's interim compliance report, LRSD status report on magnet school issues, LRSD's request for affirmative relief, ODM report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''","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":["2000-03"],"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--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ADE's motion for approval of monitoring plan, LRSD's interim compliance report, LRSD status report on magnet school issues, LRSD's request for affirmative relief, ODM report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''"],"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/1715"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["27 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) status report on magnet school issues; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for extension of time to file reply brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, order; District Court, reply brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan and in opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for affirmative relief; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion to extend time and for referral  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 MAR 6 2000 OFflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 LRSD'S RESPONSE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN LRSD, for its Response to ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan, states: 1. LRSD admits the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 3 of ADE's Motion. 2. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of ADE's Motion . . 3. ADE has failed to comply with its monitoring obligations originating in Section III.A. of the Settlement Agreement. See ODM Report dated December 18, 1997, \"Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's Monitoring of the, School Districts in Pulaski County.\" 4. ADE's proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP\") will not further LRSD's efforts to comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") for the following reasons: a. Under LRSD's Revised Plan, LRSD may be released from court - supervision at the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year. LRSD must submit a compliance report to the Court and the parties on or before March 15, 2001 . However, the DMAP does not even contemplate a monitoring report being filed until October 1, 2000. This is too late to be of any benefit to LRSD; b. LRSD now has in place its own internal monitoring processes specifically related to LRSD's Revised Plan. It objects to being required to provide information to ADE so that ADE can reformat the data and give it back to LRSD in the form of a \"monitoring report.\" 5. ADE's motion should also be denied for the following reasons: a. ADE's monitoring no longer needs to be \"independent\" ofLRSD. ODM provides independent monitoring of LRSD. See the \"Allen Letter\", \"We anticipate that the enclosed plan may be modified ... after we learn more about the monitoring role that will be undertaken by Eugene Reville.\"). Moreover, ADE monitoring ofLRSD does not make sense given the status of the parties. LRSD is the plaintiff in this case. ADE represents the \"remedial vehicle\" for constitutional violations committed by the State of Arkansas and other governmental bodies. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F.Supp. 1220, 1228 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"Other branches of the State, as set forth in this court's earlier opinion, [LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 352-53 (E.D. Ark. 1984)], share responsibility for these constitutional violations, but the State Board must be the remedial vehicle for their constitutional violations as well.\"); b. ADE's monitoring was part of the State's \"continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities.\" See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. The other part was State funding of compensatory education programs. Based on this State funding, ADE's monitoring served to ensure \"fiscal accountability to the tax payers [sic] of Arkansas.\" See the \"Allen Letter\", p. 1. However, LRSD no longer receives State funding for compensatory 2 education programs through the Settlement Agreement. Thus, the State's interest in seeing that LRSD spends the State's money in a fiscally responsible manner is substantially reduced. 6. The facts and circumstances set forth above justify modification of ADE's monitoring obligations. As noted above, the Settlement Agreement recognized that ADE was to have a \"continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities.\" See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. At least with regard to LRSD, that role should shift from one of monitoring to one of active participation in the district's efforts to eliminate the achievement disparity between African-American and other students. This Court should order ADE to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in achieving this goal. ADE should be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward - monitoring of LRSD. 7. Additionally, since ODM now provides the independent monitoring which under the Settlement Agreement and the Allen Letter was to be performed by ADE, ADE should be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the current year and to pay for ODM in the future. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan be denied; that ADE be ordered to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in eliminating the achievement disparity between African-American and other students; that ADE be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward monitoring ofLRSD; that ADE be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the 3 current year and to pay for ODM in the future; that LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that LRSD be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served f the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this ~ay of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. 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 Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 6 2000 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITDRJNQ 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 MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSD'S RESPONSE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN ADE represents the \"remedial vehicle\" for constitutional violations committed by the State of Arkansas and other governmental bodies. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F.Supp. 1220, 1228 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"Other branches of the State, as set forth in this court's earlier opinion, [LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 352-53 (E.D. Ark. 1984)], share responsibility for these constitutional violations, but the State Board must be the remedial vehicle for their constitutional violations as well.\"). As such, ADE agreed to monitor and evaluate LRSD's compensatory education programs as a part of ADE's \"continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities.\" See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. and the \"Allen Letter.\" No such monitoring and evaluation ever occurred. See ODM Report dated December 18, 1997, \"Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County.\" ADE's failure to comply with its monitoring obligations, in conjunction with the other facts and circumstances outlined in LRSD's Response, justify modification of the Settlement Agreement. Given that nature of the ADE's monitoring obligations and the modifications sought by LRSD, the Supreme Court's decision in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), provides the relevant legal standard. In that case, the Supreme Court held: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. A myriad of changed circumstances may justify modification under Rufo. See,~ Jacksonville Branch, NAACP. v. the Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (1 Ith Cir. 1992)(\"Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). The modifications proposed by LRSD are suitably tailored to the changed circumstances outlined in LRSD's Response in that they further the underlying purpose of ADE's monitoring: to eliminate the achievement disparity between African-American and other students. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995)(approving the closing oflsh Incentive School because it advances the goal of desegregation); Heath v. DeCourcy. 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. l 989)(Modification of a consent decree 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.\"). 2 ADE may object to the modifications sought by LRSD arguing that they increase the financial obligation of the State. Even if this is true, this objection is without merit because ADE has been adjudged a constitutional violator. Compare Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141 (6th Cir. 1992). In Lorain, the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court order modifying a consent decree and substantially increasing the financial obligations of the State of Ohio for desegregation of the Lorain City School District. The linchpin of the Sixth Circuit's decision was the fact there had been no adjudication of a constitutional violation by the State. Id., at 1153 . The Sixth Circuit concluded: In the absence of an adjudication or admission of [a] constitutional violation, the district court's authority to impose additional obligations on a defendant is constrained by the terms of[the] agreement entered by the parties to the consent decree. Id. In the present case, the State of Arkansas was adjudicated a constitutional violator. Therefore, subject to satisfaction of the Rufo standard, this Court has discretion to modify ADE's monitoring obligations in a manner that increases the financial obligation of the State. Therefore, LRSD respectfully requests that ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan be denied; that ADE be ordered to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in eliminating the achievement disparity between AfricanAmerican and other students; that ADE be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward monitoring ofLRSD; and that ADE be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the current year and to pay for ODM in the future. 3 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 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 ~ay of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 l 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 Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED EAsrMk\\ 13',i~~',g. ~2~sAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR O 7 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS - WESTERN DIVISION ~~ME,fv.~Mc R~ACK ~LERK , ~\\AJlJL~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * o P C1:ffiK Plaintiff * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 The Little Rock School District moves the Court for an Order authorizing a special millage election to be held May 9, 2000 [docket no. 3339]. The District states it has a pressing need for additional funds to meet desegregation commitments associated with the construction, renovation, and maintenance of its school facilities. Additionally, the District explains it must plan for the needed expenditures by May 2000 and cannot wait for the annual school election (scheduled for September 2000) to place the proposal before the electorate. After careful consideration, the Court finds that the proposed special election should be authorized. See Liddell v. Missouri, 731 F.2d 1294, 1321 (8th Cir. 1984). THEREFORE, the Court hereby authorizes a special millage election to be held in the Little Rock School District on May 9, 2000 for the purpose of placing before the electorate a proposal to increase the millage rate in the Little Rock School District by 5 mills. FURTHER, the millage election authorized by this Order shall have the same force and effect under Arkansas law as if it were a regular school election. IT IS SO ORDERED TIDS 1%A Y OF MARCH, 2000 ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ::C.;MPUANC;.,ZTH RULE 58 AN~R~(a) FRCP ON ;!i'.25 t7D BY _ j IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al., Defendants, No. LR-C-82-866 l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * MAR l O zmm KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER v'C1, :'I\"\\,C,. vr~rC DESEGREGAT!CN MONITOmNQ Previously, the Court held in abeyance its decision regarding the Little Rock School - District's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement with respect to the number of magnet school seats within each magnet school. The Court directed the parties to brief the Court whether under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of state-funded seats for individual magnet schools may vary (providing the total number of state-funded seats remains at 4,065) without disrupting the substantive commitments contained in the agreement. 1 The State responded that the \"Settlement Agreement specifically limits the State's financial obligation for students attending the six original magnet schools\" and \"ties the limits to the State's financial obligation to a maximum number of students for each of the six magnet schools.\"2 According to the State, the parties ' decision to delineate specific seating limits for each magnet school supports a finding that the limits are substantive commitments under the 1 Docket no. 3308. 2 Docket no. 3320. - agreement, which may not be modified absent a showing of significant change in circumstances. LRSD filed a motion for more time to respond to the Court's request for briefing, and the Court granted the motion. However, the extended time for responding has passed and LRSD has not filed a response. The Court provides the LRSD to and including 5 days from entry of this Order to file a response. If a response is not forthcoming, the Court will conclude LRSD does not object to the State's response and enter an Order denying LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement [ docket no. 3292]. JA.- IT IS so ORDERED THIS_%_ DAY OF MARCH, 2000 CHIEF JUD E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUAN~~ITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 'JN 3 -9 L q;:, _ !Y t1::;-----; . - 2 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 11922 1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON , P. A . BYRON M. EISEMAN , JR .. P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P. A.  ES A . BUTTRY , P.A . DERICK S. URSERY , P . A . ARE . DAVIS , JR., P. A . MES C . CLARK, JR., P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P.A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill , P. A . LARRY W . BURKS , P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P. A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P. A . J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M . SAXTON . P. A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P. A . DONALD H. BACON , P.A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A. BARRY E. COPLIN , P.A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR ., P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill , P. A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A . DIANE S. MACKEY, P. A. WALTER M . EBEL Ill , P.A. KEVIN A . CRASS, P. A. WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A. SCOTT J . LANCASTER , P. A . M. GAYLE CORLEY , P. A. ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR ., P. A . J . LEE BROWN, P. A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR . , P. A . HARRY A . LIGHT , P.A. Mr. James W. McConnack FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376 -2011 FAX NO . 501376  2147 March 15, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 15 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT H. TUCKER , P.A . GUY ALTON WADE , P.A . PRICE C. GARONER. P.A . TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WILSON , P.A . JEFFREY H. MOORE , P.A . DAVID M. GRAF , P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C. FENOLEY , JR ., P.A . JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P. A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P. A . TONY L. WILCOX . P. A . FRANC . HICKMAN , P.A . BETTY J . DEMORY, P. A . LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A . JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL . HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N. RAYDEA JASON 8 , HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A . IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH a, COUNSU WILLIAM J . SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H. T. LARZELERE . P. A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A. WAIT(A 'S DIAfCT NO . (501) 370-3323 United States District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et. al.; Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed please find the original and copies of plaintiffs Notice of Filing LRSD's Interim Compliance Report to be filed in the captioned case. Please file the original of record and return the extra file marked copies to me in the enclosed envelope. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of the enclosed pleading to counsel for the defendant. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones F:IIIOMEIJEANNE\\Barbaraljcf  lrsd v. pcssd clcrlc-lt.wpd Since~ly, {tjj) l1tC~.~ Jopn C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger 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 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby gives notice of filing the attached Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 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 15th day of March, 2000. 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 Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 JnC. Fend~y 2 RECEIVED MAR 15 2000 Olt!CE OF Interim Compliance Report DESEGRE6',TION~roNrrrr,ms Little Rock School District March 15, 2000 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922 -199'1 WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P .A . - YRON M . EISEMAN , JR. , P.A . OED. BELL, P.A. AMES A . BUTTRY, P . A . FREDERICKS . URSERY, P. A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR q P . A . JAMES C. CLARK , JR . , P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P .A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P .A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill . P . A . LARRY W . BURKS . P. A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR . , P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P.A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M . SIMPSON , P . A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P . A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P .A. DONALD H , BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A . BARRY E. COPLIN , P. A . RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , P . A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR . , P .A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P . A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A . ROBERTS. SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P .A. MICHAEL$. MOORE. P. A . DIANE S . MACKEY, P. A . WALTER M . EBEL Ill. P.A. KEVIN A . CRASS , P.A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR . , P.A . SCOTT J . LANCASTER, P . A . M . GAYLE CORLEY , P. A . ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR. , P . A . J . LEE BROWN, P.A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR ., P . A . HARRY A. LIGHT , P.A . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 March 17, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 2 0 2000 Mr. James W. McCormack District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: SCOTT H . TUCKER , P.A . GUY AL TON WADE , P.A . PRICE C . GARONER, P.A . TONIA P. JONES , P.A. DAVID 0. WILSON , P.A. JEFFREY H . MOORE, P.A . DAVID M . GRAF, P.A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C . FENDLEY , JR. , P.A. JOHANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER . P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON , P. A . GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR , P.A . TONY L . WILCOX , P.A. FRANC . HICKMAN, P.A . BETTY J . DEMORY, P. A . LYNDA M . JOHNSON, P.A . JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT DANIEL L . HERRINGTON K . COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR . ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N . RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIOWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A . IFRAH MARTIN A . KASTEN ROBERT T . SMITH Of COUN SEL WILLIAM J. SMITH S . S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H . T. LARZELERE , P.A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A . WAITIEll ' S OIAECT NO . (501) 370 - 1506 Enclosed please find the original and three copies of Status Report in the above-captioned case. Please file the original and return copies of same to me bearing your file mark. By copy of this letter I am forwarding copies of same to the attorneys of record. Thank you for your assistance. CH/pch Enclosures cc w/enc.: Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. John W. Walker Richard Roachell M. Samuel Jones Ann Brown Timothy Gauger Steve Jones IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD STATUS REPORT ON MAGNET SCHOOL ISSUES RECEIVED MAR 2 0 ZOGO OfRGHt oESGREGATIOH OITORIMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its Status Report, the Little Rock School District states: 1. In May of 1999 the MRC asked the Court to approve a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the Magnet - Schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The proposed change was in response to LRSD's reorganization of its school grade structure into a new configuration which includes middle schools. The MRC proposal led to a disagreement between the Arkansas Department of Education and LRSD about whether the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement limits either the total number of magnet seats or the number of seats at any particular magnet school for which ADE can be required to contribute funding. 2. LRSD and ADE have resolved their disagreement. They are in the process of drafting a Memorandum of Understanding to reflect the resolution of these issues. A Memorandum of Understanding will F:IHOME\\BRENDAK\\lr\u003ed\\PCSS-sl\u003e!Us. rep. wpd be filed with the Court as soon as it has been completed and signed by the parties. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 37 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 17th day of March, 2000: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOME\\BRENDAK\\lrsdlPCSS-SUIUs.rep. wpd 2 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72 201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 0 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DMSION By:-----'Y--~~.,J..J.J.~~~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants,  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * ORDER MAR 2 2 2000 OtEm0F DESEGRE6A1IDll1MlNlTORING The Little Rock School District (LR-SD) filed a status report, informing the Court that the LRSD and the State have resolved their differences related to the State's magnet school funding obligations.1 Currently, the LRSD and the State are finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding to be filed with the Court at a later date. Accordingly, the Court finds that the LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement should be, and it is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT [docket no. 3292]. -fA_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cl\u003c? DAY OF MARCH, 2000 C1~Jk- CIDEF JUDGE ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Docket no. 3345. fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANC./CITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(1) FACP 'JN 3SJ 00 . _ BYtzt: __ 3346 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER MAR 20 2fQJ By previous Order, this Court conditionally approved a revised desegregation plan submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCS SD\"). 1 The Court directed PCSSD to provide members of the Joshua Class with notice of the proposed revised plan and set March 15, 2000 as the deadline for receiving objections from class members. The time for filing objections has passed and no member of the Joshua Class has submitted comments or objections regarding the revised plan. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23( e ), the Court has carefully reviewed the revised plan and finds it to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Joshua Class. Additionally, the Court finds that counsel for Joshua provided class members adequate representation during negotiations related to the revised plan. 1 Docket no. 3337. Therefore, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion for approval of Plan 2000 should be, and it is hereby, GRANTED [docket no. 3309] Further, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions oflaw regarding the Court's denial of PCSSD's petition for release from court supervision should be, and it is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT [ docket no. 3287]. fR IT IS SO ORDERED THIS t2.o DAY OF MARCH, 2000 ~#-,~d' CHIEF JUDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN C( .1MPUA~0ITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP , ON 3 t, Qo_ ,. BY J7t:: _-' 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2000 uFFICE OF  :f SEGREGATION MONITOR/NG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") hereby moves the Court for a short extension of time, to and including March 24, 2090, within -which to file a combined reply brief in .... - . support of its motion for approval of a new monitoring and assistance plan and opposition to LRSD's - own request for modification of the Settlement Agreement The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. On February l, 2000, ADE filed a motion for approval of a proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP\") as replacing and superceding the \"Allen Letter.\" After securing an extension of time within which to respond to AD E's motion, the LRSD filed its response on March 6, 2000. In its response LRSD asserts thatADE's motion should be denied and requests modifications of the Settlement Agreement marlc.edly different than the modifications sought by ADE. 2. ADE desires to file a combined reply brief in support of its motion and opposition to the relief sought by LRSD. Treating LRSD's response as a motion for affirmative relief, AD E's response would be due on or before March 20, 2000. However, due to the press of other business, counsel for ADE will need an additional four days, to and including March 24, 2000, to file such a brief. 3. Counsel for ADE has cont.acted LRSD's counsel concerning this motion and is authorized to st.ate that LRSD does not oppose the extension of time sought herein. WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court enter an order permitting ADE to file a combined reply brief in support of its motion for approval of the DMAP and opposition to LRSD's request for modification of the Settlement .Agreement, on or before March 24, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRY "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1730","title":"Court filings concerning ADE's response to motion for approval of judgment on monitoring plan and motion for authorization to hold millage election","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":["2000-02"],"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--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School districts","School management and organization","School integration","Elections","Politics and government"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ADE's response to motion for approval of judgment on monitoring plan and motion for authorization to hold millage election"],"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/1730"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["24 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, brief in support of motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, motion for approval of judgment; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to motion for approval of judgment; District Court, order; District Court, judgment; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, the opposition of the Joshua intervenors to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice to the Joshua class; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for authorization to hold millage election  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 RECEIVEtrl.~ FEB 2 2000 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORma LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN The Arkansas Department of Education hereby moves the Court for an order approving, as replacing and superceding the so-called\" Allen Letter,\" the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP'') attached hereto as Exhibit A. The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. Pursuant to Section III.A. of the Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989), the State agreed, through the ADE, to monitor the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts and provide regular written monitoring reports to the parties and the Court. Section III.A. further provided that a plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education would be submitted to the parties within sixty days of the date of execution of the Settlement Agreement. 2. On May 31, 1989, after a version of the Settlement Agreement had been executed but before the agreement was finally amended and revised on September 28, 1989, H. William Allen (counsel for the State Board of Education) sent a letter to the parties enclosing a monitoring plan (the \"Allen Letter\"). This Court has held that the \"Allen Letter\" constitutes the ADE' s monitoring plan under the Settlement Agreement and has directed that ADE monitor according to its terms. See this Court's order dated December 10, 1993. 3. Significant changes in circumstances warrant revision of the monitoring plan set forth in the Allen Letter. 4. The attached DMAP was developed in consultation with the parties. It is suitably tailed to the various changes in circumstance that have occurred since the Allen Letter was drafted and, if approved, will further the original purpose of Section III.A. of the Settlement Agreement in a more efficient and beneficial way. 5. The grounds for thi_s __ motion are ~ore fully set forth in the brief accompanying this motion. WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and enter an order approving the attached DMAP_as replacing and superceding the Allen Letter. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assista t Attorney General 323 C ter Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on February 1, 2000, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 Arkansas Department of Ed.ucatfon Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan Section I Goals The goal of the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan is to ensure educational excellence and equity in the Pulaski County School Districts by monitoring, through the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), the implementation of educational programs aimed at satisfactorily remediating racial, academic, and achievement disparities. This proposed Monitoring Plan will, if approved by the Court, supercede and replace the 1989 Monitoring Plan (the \"Allen Letter\") and formatting directives by eliminating unnecessary or redundant provisions, reducing the data collection and submission burden on districts, and ensuring that districts remain accountable for commitments made to quality desegregated education. To ensure the integrity of the monitoring reports, the ADE will continue to use the Standards of Educational Evaluation. The Standards for Educational Evaluation define four attributes of sound evaluation: 1. The utility of the evaluation to the audience to be served in relation to the problems they face; 2. The feasibility of the evaluation in terms of its efficient use of practical procedures; 3. 4. Section II Propriety, which calls for fair treatment of participants in the evaluation and ethical use of evaluation procedures and findings; Accuracy, which calls for obtaining valid, reliable and objective findings and reporting justified conclusions and recommendations. Purpose Monitoring by the ADE will be closely related to the identified needs and priorities of the school districts so that monitoring becomes an integral part of the accountability function of quality schools and districts. In particular, monitoring will focus on efforts to raise the standard for student achievement and reduce achievement disparities. The monitoring indicators are divided into five sections that are important for a high quality desegregated educational system: (1) achievement, (2) discipline, (3) staff development and technical assistance, ( 4) minority teacher recruitment and staffing, and (5) racial balance in enrollments. The purpose of the monitoring is to provide the means for determining whether the process is meeting its goals: that is, to determine how \"on target\" schools are by comparing achieved outcomes with intended ones. Exhibit A Page 1 Section m Achievement All students should perform at the proficient level as measured by the State-mandated criterion referenced assessments. All students should perform at grade level as measured by the State-mandated norm-referenced assessment. 1. The ADE will analyze achievement on the basic battery of the norm-referenced test, annually and longitudinally. Trends in educational performance will also be provided. 2. The ADE will analyze achievement on the criterion-referenced test annually and longitudinally to help schools determine the most critical areas of need. 3. The ADE will also analyze test scores to determine if racial academic disparities are being reduced. Analysis of achievement data will be conducted by the ADE and consultants hired by the ADE. Results of the analysis shall be used by the ADE and schools to:         Increase student performance. Communicate current levels of student performance to school customers. Assist in the orchestration of School Improvement Plans. Focus on reducing achievement gaps between black and white students. Identify group strengths and weaknesses in content areas. Ensure that prescriptive instructional assistance matches student needs. Determine the number of students who reach the proficient level in Math and Reading. Guide decision making about ways to improve student performance. After testing each year, monitors will determine the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Exhibit A Are plans in place to address areas of academic deficiency? Has the standard of adequate yearly progress been met? Is there significant disparity in the scores of black and white students? Are there more than 50% of the students achieving below grade level in mathematics and reading? How does the school's achievement compare to the state average and to schools with similar demographics? Is student achievement progressively improving? Page2 Section IV Discipline/Disciplinary Disparity Schools shall be organized and operated in a manner that creates safe, secure schools that are most conducive to student learning. The ADE will: I . Monitor the Annual Discipline Report Summary from each school district to determine if consequences for the same offenses are consistently applied to black and white students by reviewing disaggregated data by race, gender, offense, and total number of days suspended. 2. Review the suspension and expulsion rates. 3. Examine each school's implementation of their Disciplinary Management Plans to ascertain whether goals and objectives are being met. 4. Make recommendations as needed based on educational research, theory and best practice. Section V Staff Developmentff echnical Assistance - The State is committed to assisting with staff development, preparation, and support of educators whose primary focus is on student learning and who possess the knowledge, skills and the commitment to teach to high academic standards. The State will, through the Smart Start and School Improvement Programs assist in the collaborative development of staff development programs that ensure that instructional delivery models are aligned to student needs, state standards, and assessments. The State will also provide staff development based on needs identified as a result of the monitoring process. The ADE will: I. Monitor the district's evaluation component of staff development. 2. Collaborate with the Office of Pupil Personnel in each district in sponsoring professional development aimed at reducing the disparity in minority suspensions and expulsions with a special focus on schools with the highest disparity of discipline rates in each of the three districts. 3. Assist schools with analysis of assessment results and strategies for improved student performance. Exhibit A Page 3 4. Provide staff development on ways to recruit, retain and support teacher recruitment of minority teachers. 5. Provide staff development to schools through the Smart Start Initiative. 6. Assist schools in the alignment of the curriculum with State standards and mandated assessments. 7. Provide staff development on researched-based and proven model in reducing achievement and disciplinary disparities with demographics similar to schools in Pulaski County. 8. Provide assistance in curriculum and assessment in the identified targeted areas. 9. Ensure that the monitoring reports are useful, succinct, readable and understandable, by assisting districts in the use of five essential steps: (1) disaggregation, (2) analyzation, (3) interpretation, ( 4) communication and ( 5) utilization of report findings. Section VI Recruitment of Minority Teachers The quality of teachers is central to plans dedicated to improving student performance. The three districts in Pulaski County will need to recruit additional teachers, especially minority teachers due to retirement, and attrition. The ADE will remain committed to teacher recruitment through financial assistance for Minority Teacher Candidates, relevant job market information, and through the improvement of standards for teacher certification. The ADE will: 1. Maintain a current list of minority teachers and administrators who are seeking employment. This list should include certification areas, permanent addresses and phone numbers, and dates of availability. 2. Review the number of minority teachers hired each year. 3. Monitor the number of jobs offered to minority teachers. 4. Examine recruitment plans and efforts such as the job fair participation. 5. Assess racial balance in staffing by school and content/specialty areas. 6. Disaggregate the percent of classes taught by teacher on a deficiency removal plan. Exhibit A Page 4 Section VII Racial Balance1 in Enrollments The ADE will monitor to ensure that all students have access to a demanding curriculum, high quality instruction, and nourishing classrooms. The ADE will: I . Monitor school enrollment for racial balance in accordance with court-approved desegregation plans outlined for each district. 2. Review the enrollment of minority students enrolled in advanced placement (AP) and special education programs. 3. Evaluate the impact of interdistrict and intradistrict transfers on racial balance. 4. Review the enrollment or participation of minority students in special clubs, teams, and activities. 5. Analyze average daily attendance. 6. Review the completion rate. - Section IX Monitoring Process A. The monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court ordered remedies and will include site visitations, review of plans, review of statistical and administrative data as well as responses from school personnel, patrons and students. B. Monitoring teams shall be selected by the Director of the. ADE. The team shall include ADE personnel and may include representatives of Intervenors and other educational consultants as designated by the Director. I The ADE recognizes that the Revised Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD), does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced, and that nothing in LRSD's 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. Exhibit A Page 5 C. D. Section X The ADE will: Each district shall include in their school improvement plans appropriate objectives to achieve compliance with each court order related to the Agreement and recommendations made by the ADE. The ADE shall monitor annual school improvement plans through the Arkansas Consolidated School Improvement Planning Model (ACSIP) to determine progress toward achieving educational goals. District plans should provide evidence of compliance with court orders and a process to ascertain progress. Continuous, independent, systematic monitoring and evaluation are processes necessary for assuring and demonstrating the quality of desegregated education. However, each school and district will be encouraged to conduct internal evaluations prior to monitoring by the ADE. No system can achieve its potential and maintain a high level of service if it does not constantly assess its performance, and modify its practices accordingly to ensure internal accountability. Data Collection \u0026 Analysis 1. Collect, interpret, evaluate, and report the monitored data in a lucid, understandable manner so that the parties, the Court, the public, and ADE itself will have meaningful information that indicates the progress of desegregation, uncovers new or continuing problems, and points to needed changes. 2. Collect, analyze, and interpret selected data annually for every school in Pulaski County. 3. Examine the internal data collection and dissemination procedures annually with a view toward eliminating the duplicate collection of data throughout the monitoring process. 4. Use the desegregation monitoring process to help the Pulaski County schools meet their desegregation commitments and improve student achievement. Section XI The Reporting Process 1. The ADE shall provide a written report to the parties and the Court on an annual schedule. The report will be written by the ADE and in collaboration with consultants hired by the ADE. The report will be submitted on October 1 of each year. 2. The written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Exhibit A Page 6 3. Analysis of data shall be conducted by appropriate ADE personnel and other persons as designated by the ADE Director. Additional data may be required of the districts, as deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring reports. 4. Since data analysis is essential to the monitoring process, the State requests the Court to instruct the three districts to provide the ADE all data necessary to implement the monitoring activities. 5. In accordance with Section III-A of the Settlement Agreement: Exhibit A (1) (2) (3) ADE will monitor independently of the other parties. ADE's monitoring will ensure that the State will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State. Page 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED FEB 2 2000 OltlCE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1, et al. DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN The Arkansas Department of Education submits this brief in support of its motion for an order approving ADE' s proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP\") as replacing and superceding the \"Allen Letter.\" As discussed below, significant changes in circumstances that have occurred since mid- 1989, when the Allen Letter was drafted, warrant revisions to the State's plan for monitoring the Districts under the terms of the Settlement Agreement The proposed plan, which was drafted with the cooperation and input of the parties and the ODM, is suitably tailored to the various changes in circumstance which have occurred since the Allen Letter was drafted and, if approved, will further the original purpose of Section ill.A. of the Settlement Agreement in a more efficient and beneficial way. As this Court noted in its November 5, 1999 order concerning the Magnet Schools (docket no. 3308), \"this Court may approve modifications of the Settlement Agreement when the proposed modifications merely alter details that do not affect the parties' substantive commitments to desegregation. . . . Ordinarily, parties should consent to such minor changes, but 'if a party refuses to consent and the moving party has a reasonable basis for its request, the court should modify the decree.\"' November 5, 1999 order, page 5. If, however, the proposed modification alters a basic agreement among the parties, the party seeking modification must show that a significant change in factual conditions or the law warrants revision of the decree. Id. (citing Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 112 S.Ct. 748, 760 and fn.7 (1992); Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 255 (8th Cir. 1991); and Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 56 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 1995)). Under either standard, a revision of the Allen Letter is warranted and the proposed DMAP should be approved by the Court. Significant changes in circumstances have occurred since 1989 that warrant revision of the monitoring plan set forth in the Allen Letter. At the time the Allen Letter was drafted and submitted to the parties, what was to become the final version of the Settlement Agreement and the Districts' individual desegregation plans had not yet been finally approved by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. Perhaps the greatest indicator of the change in circumstances that has occurred since 1989 is that since that time the Districts have been relieved of court supervision over various portions of their respective plans, and, in the case of the LRSD, this Court has approved a new desegregation plan that completely supercedes the LRSD's previous plan. Pending before the court is a motion for approval of new plan that would, if approved, supercede and replace PCSSD' s previous plans. Both the LRSD' s new plan and the PCSSD' s proposed new plan focus heavily on increasing student achievement generally, and reduction of achievement disparities in particular, as major plan goals. Further, the Settlement Agreement makes clear that one of the major reasons the State agreed to extensively monitor the Districts was that the Districts were scheduled to receive millions of dollars in additional funds under the Settlement in coming years for \"compensatory education\" programs. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, those additional funds are no longer being provided to the Districts. In 2 addition, at the time the Allen Letter was drafted the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had not yet directed the establishment of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and while ADE does not contend that the creation of ODM supplants ADE' s monitoring obligations under the Settlement, it is worth noting that the Allen Letter was drafted at a time when there was no permanent office that could, as an arm of the court, regularly monitor and report on some of the same areas touched upon in the Allen Letter.1 Finally, and most important, ADE believes that experience of the parties in implementing their plans (as reflected in the various pleadings, testimony and other matters submitted to the Court, the reports prepared by ODM, the content of LRSD' s new plan and PCSSD' s proposed new plan, and the views expressed by the Districts during the process of drafting the DMAP) indicate that there are specific areas in which the Districts need or desire more focused monitoring and assistance from ADE than was called for in the Allen Letter. Experience has also shown that the Allen Letter and ADE's monitoring under it can and should be revised to be of more value to the parties and the Court. In its December 18, 1997 report on ADE's monitoring, the ODM outlined shortcomings in ADE' s previous efforts and provided suggested ways in which monitoring and reporting could be improved. In that report, among other things, it was noted that District staff members told ODM that Extended COE self-studies were helpful for the state-mandated school improvement process, but were not useful as a desegregation monitoring activity, and that previous monitoring reports produced 1 ADE obviously does not contend or intend that the DMAP, if approved, would limit in any way any monitoring or reporting activities that might be undertaken by ODM, the Joshua or Knight Intervenors, or the Districts themselves. Further, the DMAP, if approved by the Court, should not be construed as relieving the Districts of any other reporting or other requirements imposed by State law on all school districts in the State, nor should the DMAP be construed as prohibiting the ADE or other state agencies from collecting data from the Districts for other purposes, such as making reports to the Arkansas General Assembly or any of its committees. 3 pursuant to the Allen Letter were unduly voluminous and not conducive to assisting the Districts in developing strategies for quality desegregated education. ODM recommended, among other things, that ADE monitoring focus more on analysis and interpretation of data rather than mere data reporting; that ADE monitor all schools in the County annually; that ADE use, where available, data already collected by the State so as to avoid unnecessary duplicate collection of data as part of the desegregation monitoring process; that the practice of creating semiannual monitoring reports be reevaluated to eliminate duplications and omissions of information between the two reports; and that the monitoring process be more focused on helping the Districts meet their desegregation commitments. ADE took ODM' s report to heart and undertook its effort to develop a . new monitoring and assistance plan. All parties were invited to participate in all meetings in which drafts of a new plan were discussed, and the attached DMAP was thus developed in consultation with and with the input of the parties and the assistance of ODM. During the drafting process the Districts provided useful input on the specific areas in which monitoring, analysis, and assistance were needed. The parties also provided valuable input on monitoring activities and data collection under the Allen Letter that did not prove helpful to them or assist them in implementing their desegregation plans or improving student achievement. As recommended by the Districts and in ODM's December 18, 1997 report, the DMAP places more emphasis than the \"Allen Letter\" on analysis of data and providing assistance to enable the Districts to use the results of monitoring to improve student achievement, reduce achievement disparities, and meet other goals of their respective plans. The DMAP is thus superior to the monitoring plan outlined in the Allen Letter, is better tailored to current circumstances and the needs of the Districts as they implement their current desegregation plans, and will further the original purpose of 4 Section ill.A. of the Settlement Agreement in a more efficient and beneficial way. Accordingly, ADE, respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and enter an order approving the DMAP as replacing and superceding the Allen Letter. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assista Attor eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on February 1, 2000, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Timothy(; r 0 6 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. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF JUDGMENT The three Pulaski districts for their motion, state: FEB 4 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/tlG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Submitted as Exhibit \"A\" to this motion is proposed Judgment regarding prejudgment interest for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits submitted pursuant to a previous order of this Court. 2. Attached to the Judgment is a worksheet by which the districts calculate the sums set forth in the Judgment. 3. While the State has not yet had an opportunity to indicate its agreement with the calculations, the proposed Judgment is submitted at this time to meet the deadline previously established by this Court. 4. The districts believe that the calculations are accurate and that the State will not object to them .. 5. Further, by this motion, the three Pulaski districts indicate their agreement with the methodology for current and future payment of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits owed the three districts all as set forth in the State's submission dated January 21, 2000. 154793-v1 WHEREFORE, the Pulaski districts pray that the Court enter the proposed Judgment as submitted. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On February _2_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on - each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 154793-v1 2 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 154793-v1 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS By Order dated June 16, 1999, this Court first held that the three Pulaski districts were entitled to an award of prejudgment interest upon the previous award for teacher retirement and health insurance payments. That Order was reduced to judgment and was filed on July 28, 1999. On January 13, 2000, this Court held once again that the three Pulaski districts were entitled to an award of prejudgment interest upon the teacher retirement and health insurance payments due during 1998-99, the principal amount of which was paid by the State on September 2, 1999. The Pulaski disJricts have submitted a worksheet calculating the prejudgment interest due on those sums totaling $387,260.60 broken down as $232,356.36 to the LRSD; $116,178.18 to the PCS SD; and $38,726.06 to the NLRSD. The three districts have also calculated prejudgment interest on the sums owed to date by the State pursuant to the methodology submitted by the State on January 21, 2000. The Court has been advised that the three districts have no objection to the State's proposed calculation. 154769-v1 The districts have utilized March 1, 2000, as the assumed payment date for this interest. Pursuant to that calculation, which is done identically to the calculation for 1998-99, the districts calculate that they are owed the total sum of $103,202.51 and of that sum $61 ,921.50 would go to the LRSD; $30,960.75 to the PCSSD and $10,320.25 to the NLRSD. Accordingly, the districts are entitled to and are awarded prejudgment interest as set forth above. If the sums due as of March 1, 2000, are paid on or before March 1, 2000, the State will owe no additional prejudgment interest. However, in the event that the payment is not made on or before March 1, 2000, interest shall continue to accrue on the sums due and payable at the current Federal rate of 6.2870%. Inasmuch as the districts have agreed to the State's methodology for present and future payments of teacher retirement and health insurance benefits, it is further ordered and adjudged that the methodology submitted by the State shall be and shall continue to be the method by which such sums are calculated and paid to the districts and this methodology and timetable shall remain in effect pending further order of this court. 154769-v1 IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this_ day of February, 2000. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 INTEREST CALCULATION FOR TEA. RET. \u0026 HEAL TH INSURANCE - COURT ORDERED FUNDING INTEREST RATE 6.2870% 1998-99 AMT. $10,288,773 DATE MO. PAY AMT. INTEREST TOT. DUE 09/01/98 $935,343.00 $935,343.00 10/01/98 $935,343.00 $4,833.29 $1,875,519.29 11/01/98 $935,343.00 $10,014.61 $2,820,876.89 12/01/98 $935,343.00 $14,576.59 $3,770,796.49 01/01/99 $935,343.00 $20,134.71 $4,726,274.20 01/31/99 $935,343.00 $24,422.54 $5,686,039.73 03/01/99 $935,343.00 $28,402.63 $6,649,785.36 04/01/99 $935,343.00 $35,507.49 $7,620,635.84 05/01/99 $935,343.00 $39,378.85 $8,595,357.70 06/01/99 $935,343.00 $45,896.15 $9,576,596.84 07/01/99 $935,343.00 $49,486.08 $10,561,425.92 09/02/99 $0.00 $114,607.68 $10.676,033.60 09/02/99 PAID AMOUNT $10,288,773.00 INTEREST DUE $387,260.60 $387 .260.60 LRSD SHARE $232.356.36 PCSSD SHARE $116,178.18 NLRSD SHARE $38,726.06 -INTEREST CALCULATION FOR TEA. RET. \u0026 HEALTH INSURANCE COURT ORDERED FUNDING INTEREST RATE 6.2870% 1999-2000 EST. AMT. $10,288,773 DATE MO. PAY AMT. INTEREST TOT. DUE 09/01/99 $935,343.00 $935,343.00 10/01/99 $935,343.00 $4,833.29 $1,875,519.29 11/01/99 $935,343.00 $10,014.61 $2,820,876.89 12/01/99 $935,343.00 $14,576.59 $3,770,796.49 01/01/00 $935,343.00 $20,134.71 $4,726,274.20 02/01/00 $935,343.00 $25,236.62 $5,686,853.82 03/01/00 $935,343.00 $28,406.69 $6,650,603.51 04/01/00 $935,343.00  $0.00 $7,585,946.51 05/01/00 $935,343.00 $0.00 $8,521,289.51 06/01/00 $935,343.00 $0.00 $9,456,632.51 07/01/00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,456,6 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1710","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the Court's November 5, 1999, order; District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, reply and brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the court's November 22, 1999, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","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":["2000-01"],"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--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","Education and state","School administrators","School employees","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the Court's November 5, 1999, order; District Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, reply and brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Joshua intervenors' response to the defendants' motion for plan approval; District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the court's November 22, 1999, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"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/1710"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["35 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 RECEIVED JAN 3 2000 Cff1CE(f ID6ll6A1XIIDIRIIE LITfLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for December, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atto General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL \\iAli 3 2QCD OffiCEOF -GA1i0?! h\\O~~ In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of December 31, 1999 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. RECEJVEO - JAN 4 2000 OfFICE OF D~TION MONITORIIG oAsrMt~{~~D RT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RI ijijNSAs EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ,/M,f n .i 2000 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W M C By:  c 0RMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 IFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PLAN APPROVAL The Joshua Intervenors conditionally oppose the defendant's request for a new plan and respectfully request that a hearing be set in order that defendants may demonstrate what they expect to accomplish therewith. The Joshua Intervenors negotiated changed with the Pulaski County Special School District (hereinafter \"PCS SD\") in the preexisting PCS SD desegregation plan during the 1998-99 school term during the administration of Mr. Bobby Lester, then Superintendent of Schools. The basic changes were negotiated during October, November, and December, 1999. The plan was designed to replace and update the existing plan within the context of the administration of Mr. Lester. It contemplated that, inter alia, the Desegregation Office of the district and its two primary administrators would continue to implement the plan in accordance with earlier representations to the Court. It also contemplated cooperation between the parties with respect to the monitoring activities of Joshua and it set forth a process for obtaining good faith compliance with the desegregation objectives of the ogginal plan. -1- The plan was not to be submitted to the Court,, however, except as a joint submission and it was then to be after agreement upon all issues including attomevs fees. Bv submitting the plan unilaterallv. the defendants breached the agreement and thev now seek to avoid pavment offees and costs as agreed. Joshua also requests that the Court consider further plan modifications and other plan alterations in order to insure achievement of the original plan's desegregations goals. The plan submitted by the defendants takes as the work of the defendant the joint efforts of the parties. It is now being submitted out of context and out of regard for materially changed circumstances. It is submitted as a unilateral resolution of controverted issues which may be more than a year stale. Moreover, the unilateral plan presented to the Court contemplates notice to the class, a matter not even discussed by the document; and it includes a provision for raising compliance issues which Joshua would not agree to now or during the current administration due to changed circumstances. The Joshua Intervenors note to the Court that the present principal administrators of the district are vaguely familiar with the history of the desegregation plan and its commitments. Their early actions denigrate the plan and lower it as a district priority. They then reduced the role of Mr. Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, and deprecated the role and the work of the Director of Desegregation, Dr. Ruth Herts, by, inter alia, refusing her access to the second level power structure of the district known as the \"A Team\". Furthermore, citizen access before the board to discuss issues has been limited, on recommendation of the new superintendent, and in disregard of the Joshua Intervenor's request to be involved in resolution of the issue. The Joshua Intervenors have continued monitoring during the current administration and have met with general negative, if not hostile, responses from many teachers and administrators in -2- the district including the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Academic Matters, Dr. Fox. When Joshua has reported issues to the Office of Desegregation, Mr. Bowles now declines to make his own responses to the reports in writing lest they be used against the district. And, the district openly discriminates against Mr. Bowles' wife, Brenda, the district's Coordinator of Multicultural Education on the basis of race with respect to pay, duties and responsibility. We note the cosmetic nature of administrative changes. The superintendent touts academic improvement by attempting to point up significant test score changes. See Exhibit A. He then asks the board for a substantial pay raise for increasing test performance taking underserved credit for whatever changes may have occurred, if any, before he arrived. To top the plate, however, the test score data are not disaggregated by race. The Superintendent and Dr. Fox deliberately refused to allow disaggregation of the data. In this respect, the superintendent totally disregarded the \"A Team\" membership request by Dr. Herts but placed Dr. Robert Clowers, Test Director, and mostly other white male on the \"A Team.\" These are not signs of good faith of a district which is committed to desegregation. At the least they cause Joshua substantial concern that the district has no intention of effective remediation of constitutional rights of African American children. We have included the Affidavit of Joshua Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, in support of our request that the district show cause that its plan addresses the current needs of African American students, is administratively consistent with the plan, and that the new plan does not diminish rights secured by the existing plan. The plan submitted by the district should not be approved, if at all, unless and until there has been a hearing to address compliance and other issues raised by Joshua. The role of the Office of Desegregation; the reduction of status of its principal officers; the limitation upon public access to -3- the board in public meetings; the misrepresentation of achievement scores and the comcomitant failure to disaggregate the data; the limitation of access to Joshua in monitoring; the unfamiliarity of the administration with either plan; the lack of commitment to either plan; the continuation of segregated assignments within classrooms the allowance of individual teachers to set rules on the spot which apply only to African American students (see the Cooley case); and the continued disparate treatment indiscipline, special education and extracurricular activities cry out for the Court to set a show cause hearing in order for the district to address the current Joshua concerns. The concerns have not been addressed in part because of the diminished status of the Office of Desegregation of the district. There is no doubt that the Court has the authority to modify the plan. But the Court's previous admonitions have been that the parties work together to that end. That has not been - effectuated and the defendants are now seeking to be rewarded for their failure to cooperate and effectively for their failure to implement the preexisting plan. Good faith is therefore abundantly lacking. The good faith of the district is a prerequisite for the Court's exercise of discretion in a way which favors the district. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to set this matter for a hearing, require the defendants to show cause why its preexisting plan needs to be changed and the particulars therefor and require the defendants to show how the proposed new plan under the new administration will work in face of a diminished Office of Desegregation. Joshua also requests the Court for an opportunity to conduct discovery in order to be prepared for such a hearing. After such discovery and after hearing, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court approve those parts of the plan that are shown to be necessary and positive changes to the existing plan; disapprove -4- those portions of the plan which are not demonstrated to be goal related or likely to work to strengthen or improve the preexisting plan; allow for further amendments and modifications as may be required by the evidence; require the district to allow monitoring and enforcement activities to proceed through Joshua and to pay all fees and costs associated with plan deviation, monitoring and other desegregation activity. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this 3rd day of January, 2000. Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -6- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Towers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PCSSD GRADE 5 Percentile Ranks Complete Battery Reading Math Language Arts Science - PCSSD GRADE 7 Percentile Ranks  Complete Battery Reading Math Language Arts Science PCSSD GRADE 10 Percentile Ranks Complete Battery Reading Math Language Arts Science PRESS RELEASE Pulaski County Special School District Office of Educational Accountability 1999 SAT-9 Score Increases December 3, 1999 .. 1996 1997 1998 1999 1996-99 Change 40 43 41 44 +4 40 44 43 45 +5 34 38 34 37 +3 39 42 40 45 '.1-6 34 39 36 40 +6  1996 1997 1998 1999 1996-99 Change ' 46 45 44 46 0 43 42 41 44 +1 41 40 39 41 0 41 41 38 42 +1 48 50 50 50 +2 1996 1997 1998 1999 1996-99 Change 45 ' 46 48 48. +3 40 41 44 44 +4 49 49 50 52 +3 41 42 45 47 +6 49 48 50 49 O  . _-~. ..- -~. -,. ,_ - . ' . . : . .,_._. /~ _-: -: . ...  . -: _ :.- - I ,  . .  . . . .. . ~, -~\u003e  :I , . .. .. ,. .. ..  . ' - 1998-99 Change +3 +2 .. : , ~ . +3 ::-~ ',( _1 +5 +4 ... , . ',,  ', ' , : ..-, . \\.' { : 1998-99 --: : ;,~ .- ' Change .... : . .  +2 +3 +2  +4 0 1998-99 Change 0 0 +2 +2 - 1 EXHIBIT I A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ETAL. :MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS) SS) COUNTY OF PULASKI) AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS Comes now the affiant, Joy C. Springer, who admits the following affidavit under oath: 1. I was hired by class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors in approximately January, 1990 to monitor the compliance of the Pulaski County Special School District (later referred to herein as PCSSD) regarding its desegregation plan obligations and other court orders that relate to the settlement of this case. 2. Over the years as a member of the Joshua monitoring team, I have monitored PCCSD's compliance with its desegregation plan obligations. PCSSD's mission statement and plan goals are outlined on pages 3 through 12 of their respective plan. See DESEGREGATION PLAN, Pulaski County Special School District, dated April 29, 1992. Over the last five years, we - chose the following areas to monitor during our visits to schools in PCSSD: 1) Building Leadership and Management; 2) Separation of Races in School programs; 3) Staff Development; 4) Student Discipline; 5) Parental Involvement; 6) Curriculum and Educational Programs; 7) Student Achievement and Assessment; 8) Special Education; 9) Talented and Gifted and 10) Extracurricular Activities. 3. Joshua's findings over the past five years with respect to PCCSD's good faith implementation of its plan goals and obligations have been overwhelmingly mixed. The District has a tendency of \"going through the motion\" with respect to implementation of plan goals and obligations. In other words, it may be able to say on paper that a particular program has been implemented, but there are no evaluation or assessment criteria in place to determine their effectiveness. The District has a storehouse of data it has collected over the years and to my knowledge, has not done anything with its data collection. This can be said for the majority of its efforts regarding implementation of plan obligations. An example of data collection is the District's goal to correct the problem of over representation of black males in special education. Data are collected regarding student participation in special education programs and to my knowledge, nothing is done with the data .. Another example of data collection involves the discipline management system. The intent of the discipline management system was to address disproportionate discipline of black students. Many of the schools in the District have discipline management plans, however, that is just about it. They have them and to my knowledge, they don't do anything with them. The alternative discipline program for at-risk youth for the District has deteriorated over the years. The current format of this program has similarities to that of shift work for a factory. Students attend based upon shifts. Finally, and even more alarming, there is no counselor on staffi 4. In the majority of the schools visited, areas of concern remain in student achievement, ---- - - - - student discipline, separation of races in school programs, student participation in extracurricular activities, student participation in gifted and talented and advanced placement classes, parental involvement and student participation in special education. 5. I have received numerous parent and student complaints of disparate treatment with respect to discipline, participation in extracurricular activities, educational placement and the general overall treatment of black staff and students. 6. Ms. Carolyn Cooley has worked under my supervision as a monitor during the last school year. She reports that a number of classes have black students seated on one side of classrooms while white students are seated on the opposite side. She also reports that at schools like Baker, Oak Grove, and North Pulaski, she has met hostile response from teachers and the administration. They are uncooperative. 7. I have reported Ms. Cooley's findings, as well as my own, to Mr. Bowles. In the past, Mr. Bowles would investigate the complaints and often give our office a written response. Since that time, he has declined to put anything in writing because, we believe, the Superintendent has instructed him not to do so or because of the criticism that he has received from having previously documented his findings. 8. The District has hired a number of new administrators within the past twelve months, virtually all of them have been white. The hiring officials failed to consult in most instances, on information and belief, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation before filling such I vacancies. This clearly relates to effective implementation of the District's desegregation goals and obligations. 9. As a continuing monitor of the PCSSD who is involved on a daily basis in the monitoring activities of the District, I believe that the District has not effectuated any positive changes which favor black students in the PCSSD in the past year and a half In addition, I believe that the District's efforts regarding desegregation are denigrating rather than improving as it strives to achieve unitary status in all aspects of school operations. 10. In conclusion, the District does not give us the support necessary for our monitoring activities to be successful. I hereby state that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SWORN BEFORE ME TIIlS 3n1 day of January, 2000. dlliQ a !Lu:t ublic My Commission Expires: Cf/;:j2dl.s I  JANS 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S NOVEMBER 5, 1999 ORDER In its order entered November 5, 1999 (docket no. 3308), and in response to the LRSD's motion to modify the Settlement Agreement, this Court concluded that there - was no basis to modify the Settlement Agreement so as to increase the total number of magnet school seats the State must fund beyond a total of 4,065 for all six magnet schools. The Court requested additional submissions on the question of \"whether the number of stipulated seats for each individual [magnet] school, as set forth in the settlement agreement, involves a substantive commitment (which may not be modified absent a showing of significant change in fact or law) or a detail (which may be modified when a reasonable basis for modification exists).\" The Settlement Agreement specifically limits the State's financial obligation for students attending the six original magnet schools. The Settlement Agreement does not define the limits to the State's financial obligation in terms of an aggregate number of students for all magnet schools, regardless of individual school enrollment. Rather, the  Settlement Agreement ties the limits to the State's financial obligation to a maximum number of students for each of the six magnet schools. The parties' decision to enumerate individual, specific seating limits for each of the six magnets as defining the limits to the State's financial obligation evidences the parties' belief that those individual seating limits are \"substantive commitments\" under the Agreement, and not mere \"details.\" Had the parties intended that the State's financial obligation for magnet schools be based on a fixed total enrollment of 4,065 students each year - without regard to fluctuations in the seating capacities at the individual schools - they could easily have crafted the Settlement Agreement to make that clear. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant tto ne General 323 Center S e , Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on January 4, 2000, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Timoiliyatig ~lf 3 FILED EAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAN 10 2000 WESTERN DMSION 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 RECEIVED JAN 1 2 2000 OfflCEOf ~MONITORING The Little Rock School District moved for an extension of time in which to respond to the - Court's Order ofNovember 5, 1999.1 For good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3321]. The District has to and including January 21, 2000 to respond. 'f--- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ifi_DAY OF JANUARY, 2000 ~uJ\\4u UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT !\"HIS DOCU~.ffNT PffERED Oi\"l DOCKET SHEET lN CCJMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a} FRCP '\")N /J,/;;O,i) _ BY --~ _ 1 In its Order, the Court directed the parties to brief the Court regarding whether under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of state-funded seats for individual magnet schools may vary (providing the total number of state-funded seats remains at 4,065) without disrupting the substantive commitments contained in the agreement. Docket no. 3308. :,::~~;i~} ~t .p \u003cl-~ rl~  )~,::J~---..---11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVE\" -JA. \",,' .: 10 -O-DO OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORIR\u0026 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME For their Motion for Extension of Time, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. Counsel for LRSD requests additional time of two weeks within which to respond to the Court's Order of November 5, 1999. 2. Counsel for LRSD has made several attempts to contact AD E's attorney but has been ,, unable to reach him. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffLittle Rock School District prays for an extension of the time within which they must respond to the Court's Order of November 5, 1999 by two weeks to and including January 21, 2000. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Christopher, Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 By: ~t . , Jr . . 92182 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 7th day of January, 2000: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Ms. Ann Brown 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 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A ven~e Little Rock, AR 72~01 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JAN 1 (,; 'lon~ t \u003c- ' ut.J OftlCE'Of ID~TIONMONITORWG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS REPLY AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S REPLY TO JOSHUAINTERVENORS'RESPONSETO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PLAN APPROVAL On November 17, 1999, the PCSSD filed its motion seeking approval of Plan 2000. The motion was accompanied by a brief which set forth the undisputed facts and the applicable law. The PCSSD consented to a 20-day enlargement of time for Joshua to respond and thereafter, Joshua sought and obtained a second enlargement of time to respond until January 3, 2000. Given the nature of Joshua's response, the PCSSD is at a loss to explain why Joshua needed any enlargement of time whatsoever. Unlike the PCSSD's submissions, the Joshua response is bereft of legal analysis, legal authority or any other matters that would be of any assistance to the Court in determining whether to approve Plan 2000. Instead, Joshua has basically submitted a stream of consciousness narrative decrying certain alleged current practices of the PCSSD and generally grousing about perceived slights and alleged 149205-v1 oversights. While Joshua's response further faults the management style of the new PCSSD administration and asserts that goals of the 1989 plan remain as yet unmet, Joshua has submitted nothing that should deter this Court from simply applying the legal standards set forth in PCSSD's opening brief and approving Plan 2000 without further delay. While the PCSSD could respond in kind and discuss Joshua's inaccurate assertions and unfounded personal attacks, could highlight the generally aggressive, inyour- face monitoring style of Joshua, explain the essentially useless written monitoring reports generated in the past by Joshua which invariably applied incorrect and inapplicable legal standards, could discuss the exorbitant financial demands of Joshua, and could highlight the generally counter productive practices of the principal Joshua monitor, such discussion would not advance a resolution of the legal issues and will therefore not be pursued here. THE PCSSD HAS BREACHED NO AGREEMENT. It is true that in a previous incarnation, Plan 2000 was developed with Joshua as the principal author, as a plan to be submitted jointly by Joshua and the PCSSD. Thereafter, Joshua refused to execute the plan as an agreement when its monetary demands went unmet. PCSSD then appended the plan to its petition for unitary status dated March 25, 1999. In response and at that time, Joshua vouchsafed no opposition to the plan. Indeed, while Joshua opposed the petition for unitary status, Joshua \"embraced\" the plan characterizing the proposed commitments as a \"renewed and more targeted\" plan that could serve as a new or amended desegregation plan. (See - PCSSD brief, p.2) 149205-v1 2 This status was fully discussed at the hearing held by this Court on September 21, 1999. It was submitted then that either party could submit the amended plan unilaterally and that this Court would not have to even apply the contested amendment standard because the parties had agreed upon the plan. The Court agreed with this proposition. (See PCSSD brief, pp.6-7) THE JOSHUA RESPONSE IS A TALE FULL OF SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING. It should be noted here that the PCSSD's declination to discuss each of Joshua's accusations explicitly should not be interpreted as any kind of concession. Indeed, the PCSSD denies them all. Instead, reduced to its bare essentials, the Court has before it only two legally viable propositions. First, will the Court decline to approve Plan 2000 and continue the - 1989 plan, a conclusion, we respectfully submit, that is at variance with the Court's previous pronouncements and rulings; or, will the Court approve Plan 2000 as a better means to the end of this litigation. That is really all this Court can and should do. While it is certainly true that this Court might very well schedule compliance hearings in the future calculated to ascertain compliance with Plan 2000, there is no current logical legal reason for this Court to indulge, by a hearing, Joshua's latest efforts to second guess personnel issues, how board meetings are structured, prematurely hear matters which are currently monitored by the ODM and other similar matters. Clearly, a desegregation plan is not logically or legally required to be tailored to the particular personalities in charge of a school district at any particular time (See 149205-v1 3 Joshua argument at its brief, p.1) but, rather, is required to be tailored to the circumstances extant at the time of the proposed modification in terms of remedying past constitutional violations. (See PCSSD brief, p.3) CONCLUSION For all of its bellicosity, the Joshua response avails nothing. It ignores the legal issues pending before this Court and represents little more than an effort to distract the Court from the real issues. In contrast, the PCSSD has thoroughly and appropriately informed the Court of the controlling law and the guiding legal principles. There are no issues for which a hearing is appropriate, much less necessary. It is respectfully submitted that Plan 2000 should be approved forthwith and the PCSSD directed to commence its implementation. 149205-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 BY_,,...,..._,;__:;,~~~~~d::,.----M. Atto pecial Sch 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January jj_, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 149205-v1 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West 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 M. Suelones Ill / 5 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN f; 2000 WESTERN DMSION JA~Es r M~ORMACK, CLERK By '~,- t)( MM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEPCi.lAA Plaintiff vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 RECEI ED WJ 1s iooo OJFlCE OF TlON MONITORING The three Pulaski County school districts-the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District (hereinafter \"the Districts\") --moved for an award of prejudgment interest related to the State's obligation to fund the Districts' contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance for the 1998-1999 school year [docket no. 3297]. The State responded [docket no. 3298], and the Districts replied to the response [docket no. 3301]. After carefully considering the parties' pleadings and briefs, the Court determines the Districts' motion should be granted. I. Previously, the Court found that the State's new method for funding school districts' contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance disadvantaged the Pulaski County Districts in violation of the parties' settlement agreement with the State. The Eighth Circuit ordered the Court to determine appropriate relief that would place the Districts \"in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed.\"1 In response to the Eighth Circuit's directive, the Court ordered the State to pay the Districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance for the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 school years and found that the Districts were entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. 2 With respect to the 1998-1999 school year, the parties agreed that the States' principal liability totaled $10,288,773. On September 2, 1999 the State paid the agreed amount. Now the Districts move for an award of prejudgment interest. II. The State asserts that the Court did not issue a judgment regarding the States' liability for the 1998-1999 retirement and insurance funding shortfall and, therefore, the Districts should not label their request a motion for \"prejudgment\" interest. 3 Whatever the label, the Court finds the subst "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1717","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for additional time in which to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of Plan 2000; District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1999-12"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, motion for additional time in which to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of Plan 2000; District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1717"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["11 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.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION DEC O 2 f999 JAMES! McCRRMACK, CLERK By: ~ ~\\i\\l:11\\\\Q[}_ OEP ClERlt 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 1999 Off-ICE Of DESEGREGATIOr~ MONITOHING The Joshua Intervenors filed an unopposed motion requesting additional time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's motion for approval of Plan 2000. For good cause shown the motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3313]. The Joshua Intervenors have to and including December 20, 1999 to respond to the District's motion. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS o2:- DAY OF DECEMBER, 1999 ~\u003c:FJUDG~E  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKETSHEET IN COMPU!CE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(8) FACP ON ,~:,'3-99 . ev_...... t;. __ RECEIVED DEC 2 2 1999 ufflCE OF DESEGREGATION MOHITORING FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT /\\RK,'\\N~  \u003c; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEC 2 1: 1999 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAM~S w. MGGORMAGK; GU:RK WESTERN DIVISION ov; _ ____ ~-:::-:-::::::-:: 01:P.CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, DEFENDANT .MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ADDmONAL TTh1E IN wmcH TO RESPOND TO PCCSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN 2000 The Joshua Intervenors for its motion for extension ohime to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Approval of Plan 2000 state: 1. Additional time is needed by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors in order to prepare a . response to defendant's Motion for Approval of Plan 2000. 2. Lead counsel, John W. Walker's trial schedule has been such that additional time is needed in order to assist in preparation of a response to said motion. He previously prepared for an oral argument in the case of Brenda Sanders v. Alliance Home Health Care, Case No. 99-__ before the United States Court of Appeals and also prepared for and was in hearing In the Matter ofZavian C. Sanders, a minor, Case No. 94-99, in the Chancery Court of Ouachita County, Camden, Arkansas last week. 3. Counsel for the defendants has been contacted to determined whether he opposes this request. Undersigned counsel has not been notified by PCSSD's counsel that he opposes this motion because he is out of town according to his office. 4. This request is not being made for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, Joshua prays that the_court enter an order extending the time to and including January 3, 2000 in which to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Approval of Plan 2000. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 '-. J ' . I  _..,  I. , I~ ... /,' ' .,,- By: .. I U/1'- -' )1l,/: v '~'~ -, \"- fohn W. Walker - #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent via United States mail, postage prepaid, to all counsel of record including counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District on this 20th day of December, 1999. [;u~ )i}. /~a IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEC 2 S 1999 JAMES J'. ~AMACK, CLERK By: \\L,~uJ\\Mof::::..__ OEP Cl.ERK The Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for an extension of time in which to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Approval of Plan 2000 [DE #3316]. For good cause shown, the motion is granted. The Joshua Intervenors have to and including January 3, 2000 in which to respond. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ;}.?-~AY OF ~'I...J CHIEF JUD E UN1TED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wlf ~ULE 56 AND/OR 79(8) FRCP 'JN / ()-.,J.8 - 9 BY JZC: ,- , 1177  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1712","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of Plan 2000; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in support of Plan 2000; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of Plan 2000","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":["1999-11"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Magnet schools","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of Plan 2000; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in support of Plan 2000; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of Plan 2000"],"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/1712"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["84 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, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 0-5 J999 JAM~~~.:_ Mff!ORMACK, CLERK By: \\/_ ~ \\1 !\\A\\~ OEP CL,ERJ('\"' This Order addresses two matters: the Magnet Review Committee's (MRC's) request to change the magnet schools' grade structure and number of seats and the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to modify the settlement agreement. After careful consideration, the Court approves the MR.C's proposed changes regarding grade structure and seating configuration; this approval does not extend to proposals regarding funding for the approved changes. Further, the Court denies LRSD's motion to modify the settlement agreement to the extent LRSD seeks modification of the total number of magnet school seats the State must fund (4,065). However, to the extent LRSD seeks modification of the number of state-funded seats within individual magnet schools, the Court holds LRSD's motion in abeyance, pending further briefing from the parties. 1 - I. In a letter to the Court, the MRC requested approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools. 1 The following chart is based on information contained in the MR.C's letter. It illustrates that, relative to the number of seats stipulated in the settlement agreement, the proposed changes decrease the number of seats in the four magnet elementary schools, increase the number of seats at Parkview, and leave unchanged the number of seats at Mann. 2 As a result, the total number of seats will increase by 132 (from 4,065 to 4,197). School Booker Carver Gibbs Williams Mann Parkview TOTALS Seats Stipulated in Settlement Agreement 660 613 351 515 935 991 4,065 Revised Seats!IJil~SJJ 4,191Mil The MRC projects that the proposed seating changes will increase costs by $129 per student. Further, the MRC proposes that the three Pulaski County school districts and the State 1 Docket no. 3269, attachment. The MRC explains that the changes would enable the magnet schools to conform to the changed structure ofLRSD schools. Pursuant to its revised desegregation plan, the LRSD reorganized its traditional elementary, junior high, and senior high schools into a new configuration, which includes middle schools. 2 See letter attached to docket no. 3269. 2 share in paying for the increased costs as follows: Party State North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Little Rock School District Proposed Increase $567,270 74,373 138,171 354,917 The Court gave the parties an opportunity to respond to the MR.C's request and advised that it would approve the changes if no objections were filed. 3 The State responded it did not object to changing the magnet schools' structure and seating, but did object to providing funds for more magnet school seats than specified in the parties' settlement agreement. 4 LRSD responded with a motion to modify the settlement agreement, 5 and the State replied. 6 II. No party has objected to the MR.C's request to change the magnet schools' grade structure and seating numbers. Accordingly, the Court approves the changes in structure and seating but emphasizes that the approval does not extend to MR.C's proposal for funding the cost of the approved changes-the subject to which the Court now turns. The State asserts it does not object to restructuring the magnet schools but does object to paying costs associated with magnet school enrollment in excess of the seating capacities set forth 3 Docket no. 3269. 4 Docket no. 3276. 5 Docket nos. 3292 \u0026 3293. 6 Docket no. 3296. 3 - in the settlement agreement. 7 Part II of the settlement agreement states, in pertinent part, as follows: D. Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet schools other than under paragraph II.E. below. . . . Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. Those seating capacities are as follows: Carver 613 Williams 515 Gibbs 351 Booker 660 Mann 935 Parkview 991 E. Continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: (1) The State's portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools (Gibbs, Booker, Carver, Parkview, Mann and Williams) .... Despite the funding limitation included in the settlement agreement, LRSD argues the State is estopped from refusing to pay its share of costs associated with the approved changes because two members of the MRC, who represent the Arkansas Department of Education, voted that each District and the State would share in paying for the increased costs. 8 The Court disagrees that under a theory of estoppel, the State must provide more funding for magnet schools than required by the settlement agreement. For an estoppel theory to apply, \"the party who is to be estopped, or one in privity with that party, must have asserted a fact or a claim, or made a promise, that another party relied on .... \"Maitland v. University of Minnesota, 43 F.3d 357, 364 (8th Cir. 1994). Additionally, \"estoppel is an equitable doctrine, and 7 Docket no. 3276 8 Docket no. 3293. 4 it should not be given effect beyond what is necessary to accomplish justice between the parties.\" Id The Court does not find that justice requires invoking an estoppel theory in the present situation or that the State (by proxy) asserted it would fund more magnet school seats than required under the settlement agreement. Alternatively, LRSD moves the Court to modify the parties' settlement agreement with the State \"to the extent necessary to implement MR.C's decisions.\" In 1991, the Eighth Circuit explained that this Court may approve modifications of the parties' consent decree when proposed modifications merely alter details that do not affect the parties' substantive commitments to desegregation. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 949 F.2d 253, 255 (81h Cir. 1991). Ordinarily, parties should consent to such minor changes, but \"if a party refuses to consent and the moving party has a reasonable basis for its request, the court should modify the decree.\" - Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 112 S. Ct. 748, 760 n.7 (1992). A different standard applies when the parties dispute a proposed modification that alters a basic agreement among the parties. In these cases, a party may obtain relief from a consent decree when it is no longer equitable that the decree should have prospective application, \"not when it is no longer convenient to live with the terms of the consent decree.\" Rufo, 112 S. Ct. at 760. \"Accordingly a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.\" Rufo, 112 S. Ct. at 760; also see Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist. , 56 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). A party seeking modification may meet its initial burden by showing a significant change in factual conditions or the law. See id The Court finds that under the parties' settlement agreement, the State may not be 5 required to fund more than 4,065 magnet school seats. This proviso constitutes a basic agreement among the parties, not a dispensable detail. LRSD asserts the Court should modify the agreement, to the extent necessary to implement restructuring of the magnet schools, because the magnet schools promote desegregation. However, the Court finds that LRSD's general assertion falls short of establishing that significant changes in fact or law warrant revision of the provision limiting the State's funding to 4,065 magnet school seats. Finally, LRSD urges that the Court should at least require that the State continue funding the total number of magnet school seats stipulated in the settlement agreement (4,065). Under LRSD's interpretation of the agreement, the State must fund at least 77 new seats at Parkview, to offset the reduction in seats at Booker, Carver, Gibbs, and Williams, and insure the State continues to fund a total of 4,065 seats.9 The State asserts that the settlement agreement limits the State's funding obligations to costs associated with a maximum number of seats for each school: 613 seats at Carver, 515 seats at Williams, 351 seats at Gibbs, 660 seats at Booker, 935 seats at Mann, and 991 seats at Parkview.10 The State maintains that under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of seats for each school is fixed and does not vary according to changes in the number of seats in other schools. The Court has concluded it lacks a proper basis to increase the total number of magnet ' school seats the State must fund beyond 4,065. However, it isnot clear whether the number of stipulated seats for each individual school, as set forth in the settlement agreement, involves a substantive commitment (which may not be modified absent a showing of significant change in fact or law) or a detail (which may be modified when a reasonable basis for modification exists). 9 See table, supra page 3. 10 Docket no. 3276, page 3. 6 The Court requests that the parties brief the Court regarding this issue. m. THEREFORE, no party having objected to MR.C's request for approval to change the interdistrict magnet schools' grade structure and seat numbers, the Court hereby approves the proposed changes. The Court's approval does not extend to the Committee's proposals for funding. FURTHER, the Court declines increasing the total number of magnet school seats funded by the State, and to this extent, LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement with the State is hereby DENIED IN PART [docket no. 3292]. FURTHER, the Court directs the parties to brief the Court regarding whether under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of state-funded seats for individual magnet schools may vary (providing the total number of state-funded seats remains at 4,065) without disrupting the substantive commitments contained in the agreement. To this extent, LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement with the State is hereby HELD IN ABEYANCE [docket no. 3292]. FURTHER, the parties have to and including 60 days from entry of this Order, to submit the requested briefs. ~ - ~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS~DAY OF ,\u003c , 1999 ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ~:=ce WITH RULE se AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ~ i./:;\u003e:-CJ1 BYJiZC:...i .---- 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN 2000 The PCSSD for its motion, states: NOV 1 8 1999 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MDNITORJUB PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The PCSSD petitioned for unitary status on March 25, 1999. 2. By order dated July 19, 1999, this Court ruled that the PCSSD had not achieved unitary status. 3. Appended to the PCSSD petition for unitary status was a document entitled Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments. While Joshua opposed the PCSSD petition for unitary status, it, in the words of this Court, \"embraced\" the PCSSD post unitary commitments and, except for the issue concerning the duration of the commitments, agreed that the commitments could serve as a new or amended desegregation plan. 139757-v1 \\ 4. This Court has frequently encouraged the parties to modify their desegregation plans to make them more workable, has elicited testimony from court experts to assist the parties regarding issues being monitored by the district court and has approved a new Little Rock plan that is very similar to proposed Plan 2000. Further, the district court's finding that the PCSSD is not yet unitary is at least a de facto finding that its plan warrants modification. 5. The PCSSD converted the post unitary commitments to \"Plan 2000\" which was considered by and unanimously approved by the PCSSD Board of Directors on November 4, 1999. 6. Plan 2000 was previously considered by the Court and the parties as the PCSSD Post Unitary Commitments and was furnished to all parties before the PCSSD - Board action. 7. The PCSSD submits that Plan 2000 is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua Class members and that it comports with the requirements of this and the Court of Appeals' standards for approval. 8. Attached to this motion as Exhibit A is a copy of Plan 2000. Exhibit Bis a letter dated November 2, 1999, detailing the changes which converted the Commitments to Plan 2000. Exhibit C is a proposed notice for publication to Joshua Class members and Exhibit D is a proposed order for the consideration of this Court. 9. This motion is accompanied by a memorandum brief which fully explains and supports the relief sought herein. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that this Court give tentative approval to Plan 2000, that it order publication of the notice attached as Exhibit C, that it assign a closing 139757-v1 2 date for comments to be submitted to the United States District Court clerk and that, thereafter, it approve Plan 2000 as submitted and dismiss the PCSSO petition for unitary status without prejudice. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 0) ty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November_!_!_, 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown OOM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 139757-v1 3 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West 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 A. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAN 2000 DA TED November 4, 1999 Scope of This Plan (1) This Plan shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District with the following exceptions: (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation case \"Settlement Agreement\" as revised on September 28, 1989; (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 the court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections (a) through (d) above to the extent not inconsistent with this Plan. B. General Obligation PCSSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to provide that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of the PCSSD, and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending PCSSD schools. C. Assignment of Students (1) The PCSSD shall continue to implement the current standards for the assignment of students to schools within the district. The PCSSD shall inform the Joshua lntervenors of the documents which set forth the details of the existing plan. This notice shall be provided within 30 days of the court's approval of this Plan. (2) The PCSSD shall submit not later than October 15 in each school year a report concerning one race classes. The report shall set forth for each such class: (i) the school, (ii) the class including the grade level, (iii) the racial make-up of~th~ec-la~ss, --- ijQt..-r ;. ,~. - '1f\" ::::..~.: ~ -. ... ~~-'/) :: : . ~if.~;., 1367~v1 (iv) a description of steps taken to eliminate the particular one race class and the reason(s) why this proved to be infeasible. The PCSSD shall submit not later than March 1 of each school year a similar, supplemental report concerning any one race classes in courses commencing in the second semester of the school year. D. Advanced Placement, Gifted and Talented and Honors Programs Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the PCSSD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenors the standards then in place for selecting secondary students for and educating them in advanced placement, gifted and talented, and honors programs, including standards to promote racial diversity in these programs. The PCSSD shall include in this submission notices which are used to inform staff members of the relevant standards. E. Student Assignment; lnterdlstrlct Schools (1) PCSSD and LRSD shall operate interdistrict schools in accordance with the following: 136743-v1 (a) PCSSD lnterdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school which may be constructed in the Chenal Valley area as lnterdistrict Schools. (b) LRSD lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as lnterdistrict Schools. ( c) Racial Composition. The ideal composition at the 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, except that Baker School shall not be subject to this requirement. (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. The District shall also reserve up to half of the seats for LRSD black students in any new Chenal Valley School. ( e) Recruitment. PCSSD and LRSD agree to implement programs at interdistrict schools designed to attract 2 (f) (g) interdistrict transfer students and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfer students to interdistrict schools. Outside Students. lnterdistrict 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. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the PCSSD for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to interdistrict schools. F. Discipline (1) The PCSSD will continue to gather data which allows a full assessment of its success in achieving its objective of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. As a foundation for this effort, disciplinary records shall be kept on each student concerning the nature of any discipline imposed (suspension, Saturday school, expulsion, etc.); the teacher and staff member involved; and the school, race, and sex of the student. (2) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall submit to the Joshua lntervenors, for comment, proposed criteria for identifying, from the data collected: (i) teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems which require attention; (ii) schools which have atypically high discipline rates; and (iii) schools which have atypically high racial disparities in discipline. The Joshua lntervenors shall have 21 days to provide comments on these proposed criteria. The PCSSD shall then complete the criteria promptly. (3) The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation and the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall thereafter provide for and participate in specific efforts to work with teachers and other staff members and the personnel of schools, identified pursuant to the criteria set forth in paragraph 2, to promote achievement of the goal of eliminating racial disparities in school discipline. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall maintain records showing the specific steps undertaken. ( 4) PCSSD shall conduct a comprehensive study of the disciplining of African-American students, particularly male students, at the secondary level. The participants (a minimum of twelve (12)), one-half designated by the Joshua lntervenors and one-half by PCSSO and the PACT and PASS, shall consider the causes for the high rates of discipline for African-American students and possible remedies. The panel 3 136748-v1 shall, among other things: review discipline records to secure an understanding of the circumstances in which African-American students are disciplined; interview and\\or survey African-American students regarding their experiences in the system generally and in the discipline process; and consider the possibility of a relationship between unmet academic needs and discipline rates. The written study shall be completed not later than 150 days after court approval of this Plan and shall provide suggestions for prevention and intervention measures. (5) The PCSSD shall develop a specific initiative to reduce the rates of discipline in the PCSSD shown in ODM's report dated March 18, 1998. This initiative shall be implemented not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. (6) PCSSD shall adhere to the policies set forth in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, as revised after consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, PACT and PASS, to provide that students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel shall be responsible for determining the fairness of student disciplinary decisions. He will delegate the student hearing function to a single hearing officer who will consider the appeal brought by parents and the position of the administrator making the recommendation and then make a decision based upon equitable factors. An aggrieved student may appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent may review the matter or refer it to the school board for action. The committee approach which utilizes school principals in the student appeal process has been discontinued and will not be reinstituted. G. Multicultural Education (1) The PCSSD shall continue its efforts to infuse multicultural instruction in all curriculum areas. All phases of a school's environment (~. instructional materials, lesson plans and lessons, library contents, bulletin boards, extracurricular activities, school assemblies, speaker programs, and food services) shall reflect the system's Plan to multicultural education. (2) A principal activity of the Coordinator for Multicultural Education and the Coordinator's office shall be on-site visits to individual schools to determine whether the system's policy and the provisions of this Plan are being implemented in fact. The Coordinator shall maintain records permitting an evaluation of the status of implementation at each school visited. H. School Facilities (1) The PCSSD shall prepare, with the help of consultants, as necessary, a plan so that existing school facilities are clean, safe, attractive and equal. The plan shall address alternatives for funding its implementation. The Board of School Directors shall approve a plan not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. The 4 136748-v1 Joshua lntervenors shall be given a 14 day period to comment on the content of the plan prior to its adoption. (2) An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\\Maumelle area will be built. The Board will address the development of a plan for new school construction during the term of this Plan if funds are sufficient, including its funding, and report its conclusions not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. Moreover, the PCSSO shall not close schools which are located in predominantly African-American areas absent reasons of compelling necessity (which does not include the opposition of white patrons to attending such schools). (3) The PCSSD shall notify the Joshua lntervenors of plans for constructing new schools and for adding capacity to existing schools. The notice shall identify the capacity of the proposed facility, the area of the system to be served, and the projected impact on the racial make-up of the students in each school expected to be affected by the new construction. The Joshua lntervenors shall have a period of 14 days in which to provide input concerning each such proposal. I. Scholarships Within 30 days from the date that the LRSD successfully establishes its own scholarship program, PCSSD shall establish a bi-racial committee to explore a program for providing college scholarships to designated PCSSO students. J. School Resources PCSSO shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua lntervenors, a study to determine whether school resources are allocated equitably among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil\\teacher ratio; pupil\\staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size: computer\\pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified. K. Special Education (1) Not later than 45 days after the court's approval of this Plan, the PCSSD shall provide to the Joshua lntervenors the standards then in place for: (i) stressing intervention strategies and regular class modifications in an effort to prevent inappropriate referrals of black males and kindergarten students; (ii) monitoring the folders of all kindergarten students and black students who are being considered as in need of special education under IDEA and Section 504 to insure nondiscrimination in 5 136748-v1 evaluation and placement. The PCSSD shall include in this submission materials which are used to inform staff members of the relevant standards. (2) The Director of Special Education shall develop a specific plan for additional monitoring each year, by his\\her staff, of schools where there are atypically high racial disparities in special education classification, generally or as to black male students. The PCSSD shall provide a copy of this plan to the Joshua lntervenors, which shall include criteria for identifying schools for monitoring. L. Staff (1) The PCSSD shall recruit applicants for each available administrative position, by internal and external means, in a manner designed to communicate, broadly, its availability and to develop a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall, with the cooperation of the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel, be informed of the make-up of each such applicant pool and they shall have the authority to direct that additional recruitment take place prior to the offering of the position to a particular applicant. (2) The PCSSD shall engage in recruitment so that new teachers are selected from a racially diverse pool of applicants. The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall monitor the recruitment process so that recruitment is extensive and sustained, and the hiring process so that no policy; practice, or custom has the purpose or the effect of imposing an upward limit on the proportion of black teachers. (3) The PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and\\or procedures which result in an increase in the number of African-American earty childhood teachers, primary grade teachers, and secondary core teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the PCSSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. (4) The PCSSD will allocate teachers and other professional staff in a manner which avoids the racial identification of schools. M. Student Achievement (1) The PCSSD shall implement the plans designed to improve student achievement, recommended by Dr. Stephen Ross, and shall work with Dr. Ross in their implementation. See Attachment (plans). (2) The PCSSD shall continue to implement its home-school counselor program. 6 136748-v1 N. Monitoring (1) The Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation shall: (i) develop a plan so that he (or she) and his (or her) staff focus their monitoring and compliance efforts on the specific elements of this Plan; and (ii) provide the Joshua lntervenors within 30 days of the court's approval of this Plan a list, geared to the sections of this Plan, identifying the staff member or members with particular responsibilities for its implementation and the position held by each. (2) Upon reasonable notice, the Joshua lntervenors shall have the opportunity: (i) to examine and secure copies of records relating to the PCSSO's compliance with this Plan, including records identified in this Plan, and (ii) to meet with the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation or a staff member responsible for a particular part of the implementation of the Plan. 136748-v1 (3) The PCSSO shall submit statistical reports showing the following: (a) The enrollment in each school by race; (b) The enrollment in gifted and talented programs, honors programs, and advanced placement classes, by school and by race; (c) The make-up of special education programs: (i) by disability category, including Section 504, by race, and by sex; and (ii) by school, by race, and by sex; provided that the system may comply with this reporting requirement by providing copies of materials submitted to ADE, as long as they include all information designated in this paragraph; (d) For each school and the system, the number of instances of each form of discipline, by race and by sex; for each school and the system, the number of students receiving each form of discipline, by race. and by sex; (e) The racial make-up, in each school, of (i) the administrators, (ii) the faculty, (iii) other professional staff, and (iv) support staff; (f) The racial make-up, by category, of the various categories of administrators, faculty, support staff, and other workers employed in the PCSSO. 7 The information in all sub-paragraphs other than sub-paragraph (d) shall be submitted not later than November 1 of each year, and the information in sub-paragraph (d) twice a year, not later than 30 days after the end of each semester. N. Continuing Jurisdiction (1) General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Plan. Nothing in this Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Plan in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. (2) Process for Raising compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court to exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the Joshua lntervenors shall follow the procedures set forth below. 136748-v1 (a) Joshua shall as soon as reasonably practicable give the PCSSO Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following: (i) the paragraph(s) of the Plan at issue; (ii) the names of all students involved, if any; (iii) the names of all PCSSD agents or employees involved, if any; (iv) all facts of which the Joshua lntervenors are aware relevant to the compliance issue: and (v) a copy of all documents in the Joshua lntervenors' possession relevant to the compliance issue. (b) PCSSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the Joshua lntervenors a written response within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days from the receipt of written notice from the Joshua I ntervenors or such later time as agreed. 8 (c) If the Joshua lntervenors are unsatisfied with PCSSD's response, the Joshua lntervenors shall within 15 days of receipt of PCSSD's response submit the compliance issue to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. (d) If the compliance i "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1718","title":"Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for pre-judgment interest; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","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":["1999-10"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for pre-judgment interest; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Achievement Disparity between the Races in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"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/1718"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["75 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.  EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903 - 1077) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1013 - 1001) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX , JR. GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A . GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD . JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M, SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T . COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EOWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . CHARLES L . SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201  3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBSITE: www .wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M, TODD WOOD Writ er 's Direct Dial No . 501 -212 - 1273 mJonesCwlJ .com October 12, 1999 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A . SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY, JR. KATHRYN A . PR YOR J . MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN R. MARGARET DOBSON 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 f1CT 1' -1 1cog. .., V , v v .CffiCECf DESffiRffiATlOH .~NrmruM; Enclosed is a copy of the Districts' reply to ADE's response to the Districts' motion for prejudgment interest which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 132537-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~:~,Ill 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. THE DISTRICTS' REPLY TO ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The State opposes payment of pre-judgment interest on two grounds. It resists first because technically \"no judgment\" has been entered. The fact remains, however, that the Districts were compelled to resort to the Court seeking payment of the teacher retirement and health insurance benefits due for 1998-1999. That motion was filed on May 11, 1999, and the State responded on May 25, 1999, and in that response the State resisted making payment. Indeed, the State did not finally distribute the requested funds until September of 1999. That the State technically, and finally, made these payments before entry of an actual judgment is immaterial. The fact remains that resort to the Court was necessary to obtain the funds and, absent some consequence to the State, such as pre-judgment interest, the State has no incentive to make such payments on a timely basis but, rather, unfairly benefits by delaying payment so long as it can arguably do so. 132185-v1 The State further resists on the notion that Exhibit 504 requires \"full-year data\" before the State can make any calculation of any kind. This argument is plainly nonsense. As Exhibit 504 is structured, it is simply a mathematical equation into which any data obtained at any time can be inserted to arrive at an outcome. At bottom, the State's argument is really that they do not wish to activate Exhibit 504 until they have every last bit of data in hand so that they can delay payment for as long as possible. Further, while the Districts did agree to use Exh,bit 504 for their darnage calculations, they did not agree to wait until three months after the end of the fiscal year for the damages to in fact be calculated. That is precisely the thrust of the other aspect of the Districts' motion, still before the Court, wherein they seek payment \"on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required numbers, with adjustments to be made in June of each year using current year actual participation numbers.\" (ADE's Response dated August 19, 1999, at page 1.) To pay in this fashion would be no different from the current method pursuant to which M to M payments are made. Payments are made by the State on a monthly basis and then adjusted at the end of the year to account for any actual variances occasioned by the Lise of estimated participation. The bottom line remains that these three districts are required to make their own teacher retirement and health insurance payments on a monthly basis and the State should not be allowed to profit at the expense of the Districts by, in some instances, making payment more than a year after the initial payments are made by the Districts. 132185-v1 2 Accordingly, this Court should award pre-judgment interest to partially - compensate the three Pulaski Districts for the delay in making the 1998-1999 payments and should grant the Districts' motion dated May 11, 1999, to require future payments to be made on a monthly schedule. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By--'~,,...::;.~=---~__:;:::;-~-----Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October I 2-, 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clari\u003c - 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 132185-v1 3 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street  _ First Federal Plaza 401 West 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 132185-v1 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * R Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT t. 5 f999 C .V~ OCT 18 1999 (rJfFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * flJl!SHfflRiATION MONITORING Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval - of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 1998-1999 school year. The MRC communicated the final budget to the Court in a letter dated June 30, 1999 (attached). The letter also contains a proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year; however, the Court will address the proposed budget in a separate Order. The Court will allow the parties to and including 10 days from entry of this Order to object to MRC's final budget for 1998-1999. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order approving the budget. ' _./k-- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /.:; DAY OF OCTOBER, 1999 CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUAN~i:W?:~ 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP OH I I SJ , l!JV tt::::: ' Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} June 30, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Judge Wright: At its June 22, .1999 special-called meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and 4-0 vote (North Little Rock and Joshua lntervenors representatives were not present), approved the interdistrict magnet schools' actual budget for the six original magnet schools for the 1998-99 school year (Draft l ). FINAL 1998-99 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: The total amount budgeted, $20,146,910, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $5,127.00, calculated from an average third-quarter enrollment of 3,929.86 students. This budget reflects an increase of $473.00 per student over the 1997-98 budget, with the third year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. This final 1998-99 budget reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in June, 1998. As you know, in correspondence dated May 7, 1999, the Magnet Review Committee requested a change in the magnet school grade configurations beginning with the 1999- 2000 school year. As described in that May 7, 1999 letter, the changes result in an additional 132 magnet school seats. At its June 22, 1999 meeting, the Magnet Review  Committee approved the proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year for the six original magnet schools which reflected costs associated with the additional seats (Draft 1 ). PROPOSED 1999-2000 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET: The total proposed budget for the 1999-2000 school year is $22,941,363, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $5,648 and an increase of $521.00 per student over the 1998-99 actual budget. Salary negotiations are in progress, and it should be noted that these negotiations may have an impact on the 1999-2000 proposed budget. It is the intention of the Magnet Review Committee, therefore, to submit this budget with the recognition that some flexibility may be necessary. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 1998-99 finalized budget, as well as the proposed 1999-2000 budget, both attached herewith. \"Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -2- June 30, 1999 The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the original magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments - Actual 1998-99 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) Proposed 1999-2000 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft l) cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring ,  Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor ACHIEVEMENT DISPARITY BETWEEN THE RACES IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT October 26, 1999 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Norman W. Marshall Associate Monitor EAST~~~lb~s~ ~SAS OCT 2 6 1999 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ______ _,,.D..,..E.,.,.P-,,,C-r-,Lt:_,.Rm,K . Polly Ramer Office Manager DESEGREGATiON iliO:JITOfiiNG ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS October 28, 1999 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Building 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Pryor Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3 493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyons \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Towers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. l , et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselor: Enclosed for your records is a copy of the Notice of Filing in the above styled matter that is being filed this date with the Clerk of the Court. TGG/nc encl. 1 Sincerely, ---/=:- -= Timo y Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Sui te 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50 1) 682-2007  FAX (50 1) 682-8084 Internet Website  http ://www.ag.state.ar.us/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITnE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for October, 1999. oc, 2 g 1999 OrrlCt Or otStG~~i\\Otl i,,om10Rma Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General T 95019 Assistant A. _____ , General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1731","title":"Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to modify the settlement agreement as regards the magnet schools; District Court, districts' motion for pre-judgment interest; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for pre-judgment interest; District Court, notice of filing, project management tool","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":["1999-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Economic aspects","Magnet schools","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, order; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to modify the settlement agreement as regards the magnet schools; District Court, districts' motion for pre-judgment interest; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' motion for pre-judgment interest; District Court, notice of filing, project management tool"],"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/1731"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["86 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.  :\u003ei.J:\u003eHN W Wt{ I tit'! I IN TRE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT F:ASTF.RN T\u003eTSTRTr.T OF ARKAN.~4.~ WESTEP-1\\l DIVT..S!ON LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT WO. 1, et al., Defendants, * \"' * No. LR-C-82-866 OPTIONAL FORM 99 (7-90) r. UI MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, F\u003ex f  fax~ ;2 .., lr_ - I  ;;.-- . ,:; ?!-oL ofJ.'-----c~--'-~--=-='__,'--~~r'----,-....,,10C....:.,~~- N::iN 7:)40.,01-311-7386 5099-101 GENERAL SERVICES AOMlNIST~ATIO\"'( Y. .- \\THEP-'NE .NIGHT, et al., rntcrvenors. ORDER The Little Rock, North Little Rock; and Pulaski. County School Districts (\"Districts\") filed a motion requesting that t,.,is Coun order the State to distribute funds to the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative upon fon-...a.tion of the cooperative [docket no 3271]. The State responded [docket no_ 3275] and the Districts replied to the response [docket no. 3284]. Having carefully considered the matter, the Court denies the motion_ I_ In 1985, the Arkansas Legislature authorized the State Board of Education to establish a state funded system of multi-county educational cooperatives in Atkansas.1 The legislature intended the cooperatives to \"provide to school districts which choose to use them assistance in .. 1 1985 Atk. Acts 349 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1002). - - - - 3 2 95 ----- -- - ----- - SEP- 8-99 WED 10:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 - . meeting or exceeding accreditation standards and equalizing educational opportunities. \"2 In I 987, the Districts agreed to form the Pulaski County Educaticna} Cooperative,' and this Court approved the agreement.' Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle the State's liabiiity in this case and formulated a settlement agreement, which eliminated the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative. This Court, in an Order issued by the Honorable Henry Woods, transferred the funds previously eannarked for the cooperative to the budget of the Metropolitan Supervisor. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 716 F. Supp. 1162, .. .. . 1165 (E.D. Ark. 1989). In light of Judge Woods's Order, the parties agreed that the funds should be .. used to develop effective compensatory and remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation.\"~ Accordingly, the parties amended Part ill.E of the settlement agreement as follows: State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service [Cooperative] has ceased and the funds were reallocated to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court. Should these funds no longer be required by the Metropolitan Supervisor, they will be used to assist the ADE [Arkansas Department of Education] in securing the services of trained consultants to develop effective compensatory, remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation.' 2 Ark. Code. Ann. 6-13-1002. 3 Docket no. 737. 4 Docket no. 739. 5 Docket no. 1263, joint submission 2, ,i 9. 6 Docket no. 1263, joint submission 3, Part III, E. SEP- 8-99 WED 10:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 03 In 1990, the Eighth Circuit directed this Court to \"approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them\" and converted the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"OD~f'). See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 9.21 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8t1t Cir. 1990). In an Order clarifying the obligation of the State with respect to the ODM, this Court stated, \"While (the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor' s] name has been changed and the scope of its function narrowed to monitoring the parties' compliance with the settlement plans, the office ~ .. still exists . . . . Therefore, the State is obligated under the terms of the settlement agreement to continue funding the ODM.\"7 Before the regular session of the 1999 Arkansas General Assembly, the Districts requested that a Pulaski County Educational Cooperative be established. The General Assembly appropriated $328,618 for the cooperative but conditioned the disbursement of funds upon the \"entry of a final, nonappealable order\" in this case relieving the State \"of any further obligation to provide funds for the operation of the federal Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) or any successors to ODM. \"1 II. The Districts maintain this Court should invalidate the appropriation contingency and clear the way for the Districts' receipt of co-op funding. According to the Districts, the appropriation contingency conflicts with the parties' settlement agreement Wlth the State. Both the agreement and the legislation appear to be consistent in one important respect: 7 Docket 1442, page 4.  1999 Ark. Acts 1392  17. 3 SEP- 8-99 WED 10:12 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 - both intend that there will be no cooperative as long as the State is funding the ODM. The legislation reflects this intent unambiguously, while the agreement merely st~tes that funding for the cooperative has ceased and has been reallocated to the ODM. 9 Assuming (without deciding) that the Court bas subject matter jurisdiction to invalidate the contingency, the Court finds that there exist no grounds for such invalidation. The ODM continues to function and receive state funds . Until the State stops funding the\u003cODM by order of the Court, there is no need to address the issue of the alleged conflict between the legislation and the settlement agreement.  In conclusion, the Court finds that the Arkansas General Assembly's appropriation contingency regarding a Pulaski County Educational Cooperative does not obstruct the State's current obligations under the settlement agreement. That being the case, this Court must deny the the Districts' motion. m. THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that the Pulaski County School Districts' combined motion regarding the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative be DEN1ED l docket no. 3 271). ~t'lr\\be-r IT rs so ORDERED TillS __ DAY OF .A0Ct:ffl1', 1999 ~~tp: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The agreement refers to the Metropolitan Supervisor, but, as noted above, the latter was reconstituted as the ODM. THIS DOCUMENT E~AED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :;QMP_wNC~ 'Nl~Le 58 ANO~P ON - 1/--. av - RECEIVED SEP 1 3 1999 OfflCE Or A TIORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING September 10, 1999 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Pryor Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School-District No. 1, et al USbC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown and Gentlemen: Enclosed for your record is a copy of the Arkansas Department of Education's Response to the Little Rock School District's Motion to Modify the Settlement Agreement as regards the Magnet Schools that I have filed this date with the Clerk of the Court. TG/nc encl. 1 Respectfully, ~/:_ ~ - Tim ger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/_ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN .DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 1 3 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO LRSD'S MOTION TO MODIFY THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS REGARDS THE MAGNET SCHOOLS On July 9, 1999, the Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") submitted its objection to the Magnet Review Committee's May 7, 1999 letter to the Court In that letter the MRC sought the Court's approval \"of a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year.\" In its July 9 submission ADE pointed out that the Settlement Agreement (paragraphs II.D. and ILE.) placed limits on the State's obligation to fund the magnet schools, and that while ADE did not object to the proposed changes in grade structure and enrollment in the magnets, ADE did object to the MRC' s proposal to the extent it assumed or implied that the State would be required to pay costs associated with magnet student enrollment in excess of the seating capacities set forth in the Settlement Agreement No other party filed objections to the MRC' s May 7 letter, nor did any other party file a timely response to ADE' s July 9 submission. On August 27, 1999, LRSD filed a \"Response to ADE and Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement\" In this pleading LRSD concedes, as it must, that the Settlement Agreement limits the State's funding obligations as regards the magnet schools. LRSD argues, though, that in addition to the proposed changes in grade structure and enrollment, \"the MRC determined that ADE and the [Districts] should share the cost increase in the same proportion each party now pays to support the Magnet Schools.\" From this premise, LRSD argues that ADE is bound by (or is estopped from objecting to) increases in the State's financial obligations necessitated by the restructuring and increases in enrollment In the alternative, LRSD argues that the Settlement Agreement should be modified to increase the State's financial responsibility for the magnet schools because of a \"significant change in circumstances,\" i.e., LRSD's decision to restructure its schools. LRSD' s arguments are without merit, and its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement must be denied. A. The State Is Not Bound By Or Estopped From Objecting To The MRC's Recommendations LRSD' s response and motion is premised on LRSD' s belief that the MRC voted unanimously not only to recommend changes in grade structure and seating capacities in the magnet schools, but also to recommend that the State and the Districts \"share the cost increase [necessitated by the restructuring and increases in enrollment] in the same proportion each party now pays to support the Magnet Schools.\" While the MRC did vote to recommend changes in grade structure and number of seats in the magnets, the - record is ambiguous, at best, on whether the MRC voted on the financial implications of 2 - those changes or made any recommendations at all concerning the relative financial burdens of the State and the Districts. This Court's June 18, 1999 order characterized the MRC's May 7 letter as a request \"for approval of a change in grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools;\" the Court's order says nothing about the FY 2000 magnet school budget generally, or how costs would be allocated among the parties specifically. The MRC's May 7 letter states that on December 15, 1998 the Committee unanimously approved changes \"L11 the grade structure and number of seats\" in the magnets for the 1999-2000 school year. The letter's discussion of the budgetary impact of the proposed changes contains only estimates,1 and the MRC' s discussion of each party's projected \"share\" of the estimated FY 2000 budget is clearly based only upon the assumption that the State would continue to pay half the total costs of the magnet school budget But even if one accepted LRSD's characterization of what the MRC actually voted on and what it did not, LRSD has not cited any authority for the proposition that the recommendations of the MRC are binding on the parties, particularly when as here the MRC's recommendations purport to require one or more of the parties to assume obligations in contravention of the terms of the Settlement Agreement As has been the case with previous recommendations of the MRC, this Court entered an order giving all 1 The MRC's May 7, 1999 letter refers _.to its estimate as a \"projected calculation\" and acknowledges that a final 1999-2CXXJ magnet school budget would be submitted to the Court by June 1999. Given the MRCs uncertainty concerning the projected FY 2CXXJ budget on May 7, 1~, one can safely assume that the M~C harbored a similar uncertainty about the budgetary impact of the proposed changes in grade structure and attendance in the magnets on December 15, 1998, when the MRC voted on those proposed changes. 3 -- - - ' .. - parties notice of the MRC' s May 7 letter and set a deadline for the parties to file objections. If, as LRSD contends, the parties are bound by the MRC' s recommendations, why then would the Court submit those recommendations to the parties and provide an opportunity to object? The answer is simple: The MRC' s recommendations are precisely that - recommendations - which carry no force unless and until approved by the Court after giving the parties the opportunity to voice objections. B. LRSD's Decision To Restructure Its Schools As Part Of Its Revised Plan Does Not Tustify A Modification Of The Settlement Agreement Recognizing that the MRC has no authority to unilaterally modify the Settlement Agreement, LRSD implies that ADE should not be permitted to invoke the provisions of the Settlement Agreement because ADE did not object to LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (which makes reference to restructuring of LRSD's schools and the magnets). LRSD argues further, in the alternative, that the Settlement Agreement should be modified to the State's detriment because circumstances have changed so as to make such a modification equitable. Neither argument has merit LRSD's implication that the State should have objected to the Revised Plan in order to preserve its rights under paragraphs II.D. and II.E. of the Settlement Agreement borders on the frivolous. When the LRSD presented its Revised Plan for the Court's approval, it affirmatively represented to the Court and the other parties that its Revised Plan did not and would not alter or amend the Settlement Agreement in any way: 4 This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") shall supercede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders . . . with the follawing exceptions: a. the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement  Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement'') .. Revised Plan, 1.1. Thus, at the time LRSD submitted its Revised Plan to the Court for approval, there was no reason for the State to believe or even suspect that the Revised Plan would change, alter or cucumvent the limits on the State's financial obligations contained that are set forth in paragraphs II.D. and ILE. of the Settlement Agreement LRSD's request for a \"modification\" of the Settlement Agreement must also be denied. As an initial matter, the LRSD should be estopped from arguing that the restructuring required by its Revised Plan justifies a modification of the Settlement Agreement The LRSD affirmatively represented to the Court and the parties that its Revised Plan would not supercede or extinguish the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and while the LRSD undoubtedly inserted this language in its Revised Plan with an eye toward preserving those aspects of the Settlement Agreement favorable to the LRSD, the LRSD cannot have its cake and eat it, too. In light of the language of the Revised Plan, LRSD should not now be heard to argue that the restructuring required as part of the Revised Plan requires or justifies a modification of the Settlement Agreement Even if LRSD were not estopped, LRSD' s request for a modification of the Settlement Agreement must be denied because no modification is warranted or 5 ,. - . --  necessary in order for the magnet schools to be restructured as set forth in the MRC' s May 7 letter. In support of its request for a modification, LRSD argues that \"the MRC's action in restructuring the Magnet Schools promotes desegregation'' and \"would further the goal of achieving a unitary school district\" ADE has no quarrel with these general assertions; indeed, ADE made it dear in its response and reiterates here that ADE does not object to the restructuring of the magnets or to the changes in enrollment described in the MRC' s May 7 letter. The ADE does object though, to being saddled with financial obligations for the magnets in excess of the limits set forth in the Settlement Agreement and conspicuously absent from LRSD' s motion is any allegation that it or the three Districts collectively2 would be unable to pay the costs of the magnet school program that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement the State cannot be made to bear. The LRSD, which \"bears the burden of establishing that that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the [consent] decree,\" has therefore failed to even allege that a modification of the Settlement Agreement is warranted. or necessary to effectuate the MRC' s recommended changes in grade levels and enrollment While the LRSD would undoubtedly like the State to pay as much as possible toward the operation of the magnet schools, the Settlement Agreement places limits on the State's financial obligations to the magnet schools and the State is not willing to 2 Neither the NLRSD nor the PCSSD objected to the MRCs proposal, and neither the NLRSD nor the PCSSD filed any form of response to the ADE' s objection. 6  waive them. LRSD' s desire to increase the State's financial contribution to the magnet schools, by itself, does not and cannot justify a modification of the Settlement Agreement Accordingly, the ADE respectfully requests that LRSD's motion to modify the Settlement Agreement be denied. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorne neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on September 10, 1999, a copy of the foregoing document will be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~Tim~ger 8 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1Q03-U77) ROBERTS . LINOSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . GORDON S. RATHER , JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M . POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORO. JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS . JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER . JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER 0 . ROW! NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBSITE : www.wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer' s Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mjonesCwl/.com September 13, 1999 TROY A. PR ICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY, JR , KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON OOHS. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN R. MARGARET DOBSON Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 CFF!C~ Di: lll\u0026REGATION MONITGRl,'JG Enclosed is a copy of Districts' Motion for Pre-Judgment Interest which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 127205-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY .\u0026 JENNINGS LLP c':~,111 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. SEP l 1 1999 vtf!CE OF DESEGREGATION MONIJUUI PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DISTRICTS' MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST 1. On June 16, 1999, this Court ordered the State to pay pre-judgment interest on the sums previously paid by the State, pursuant to Court order, for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits. 2. On July 28, 1999, the Court reduced this order to a money judgment which was then satisfied by the State. 3. Recently, pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the districts agreed to abandon their appeals concerning the \"106% issue\" and the State agreed to forego any appeal regarding the court-ordered pre-judgment ;nterest. 4. The referenced orders concern teacher retirement and health insurance benefits which were owed for the years preceding 1998-99. 5. On May 11, 1999, the three districts filed an amended motion moving for an order requiring payment of the teacher retirement and health insurance benefits due 126286-v1 - for 1998-99. The State responded to this motion on August 19, 1999, and thereafter made the principal payments of these sums on September 2, 1999. 6. Attached as Exhibit A is a worksheet calculating pre-judgment interest on the sums owed for 1998-99 at the current federal interest rate of 5.2240%. This calculation and methodology is identical to that previously approved by the Court on July 28, 1999, for the pre-1998-99 award. 7. Pursuant to this calculation, the districts contend that the LRSD is owed $191,991 .04 in pre-judgment interest, that the PCSSD is owed $95,995.52, and that the NLRSD is owed $31 ,998.51. WHEREFORE, the districts pray for a total pre-judgment interest award of $319,985.07 to be allocated as described above and for all proper relief. 126286-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By  -' .\u003e\"-\\ , v~,~ - l._'-- -~ M. Samue1 Jones Ill (76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special (~chool 9if\u003etrict / 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September~. 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher He!ler Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown QOM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West 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 126286-v1 M.~)Jonesj7 3 -- - . . . ,  ::  I .. - -- - - . . - . - --- - --- - -- INTEREST CALCULACTION FOR TEA. AET. \u0026 HEAL TH INSURANCE COURT ORDERED FUNDING -INTEREST RATE - 5.2240% 1998-99 AMT. - $10,288,773 - DATE MO. PAY AMT. INTEREST TOT. DUE I 08/31/98 $925,989.57 $925,989.57 09/30/98 $925,989.57 $3,975.92 $1,855,955.06 I 10/31/98 $925,989.57 $8,234.54 $2,790,179.17 11/30/98 $925,989.57 $11,980.19 $3,728,148.93 I 12/31/98 $925,989.57 $16,541.13 $4,670,679.63 I 01/30/99 $925,989.57 $20,054.49 $5,616,723.69 I 02/28/99 $925,989.57 $23,312.63 $6,566,025.90 I 03/31/99 $925,989.57 $29,132.29 $7,521,147.76 I 04/30/99 $925,989.57 $32,293.54 $8,479,430.87 I I 05/31/99 $925,989.57 $37,621 .72 $9,443,042.16 I 06/30/99 $1,028,877.30 $40,545.58 $10,512,465.04 09/02/99 $96,293.03 $10,608,758.07 09/02/99 PAID AMOUNT $10,288,773.00 INTEREST DUE $319,985.07 ~ $319,985.07 I LASO SHARE (~\u003e- -- 91,991.04 I PCSSD SHARE \\ \\'' _:;,, $95,995.52 NLRSD SHARE ~- \u003c'~ \\) $31,998.51 I , --~,_ I ---~-, ~ . ' W ,:...) , I I - 0:..:___,, I (v(~/ I ~ 00 I C. I S; :~\"- ,- :'\\_--' I (,,.\u003e.' .) '. ( ) ) I /'r ) ~ --:::-:_l 1, \\\") I \\ . , . I / ' ~ _, .. I - EXHIBIT I I? . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 2 3 1999 ufflCEOF JESEGREGATION MOHITORINS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST DEFENDANTS On September 13, 1999, PCSSD (presumably on behalf of all three Districts) filed a \"motion for prejudgment interest\" In this motion the Districts seek an award of $319,985.07 in \"interest'' on amounts paid by the State to the Districts on September 2, 1999. The September 2 payments represented adjustments for teacher retirement and health insurance matching costs for fiscal year 1999. The Districts' motion must be denied. First, it is a misnomer to call the Districts' request as one for \"prejudgment interest'' because no judgment has been entered with respect to retirement or health insurance payments to the Districts for FY 1999. The Districts' motion can be more accurately characterized as a motion to establish some form of periodic payment schedule in future years for retirement and health insurance payments to the Districts and to establish an obligation to pay some form of \"interest'' if those payments are not timely made. As such, the Districts' motion must be denied because the Districts have already agreed to accept the methodology used to create - Court's Exhibit 504, a methodology that contemplates a single, post-fiscal-year payment to the Districts. Having agreed to such a methodology, the Districts should not now be permitted to essentially \"reopen\" the litigation concerning the retirement/health insurance remedy so as to establish some sort of monthly or other periodic payment obligation on the part of the State. Second, under the methodology used to create Exhibit 504, retirement and health insurance adjustment payments due the Districts for a particular fiscal year cannot be known - and therefore cannot be calculated with any certainty - until that fiscal year has ended and full-year data on retirement and health insurance costs (including costs attributable to ODM employees) is available for that year. As regards fiscal year 1999, there is no dispute that ADE made FY 1999 retirement and health insurance adjustment payments to the Districts in a timely manner after the FY 1999 data was made available to ADE. There is no allegation of untoward delay on the part of the State, and the Districts do not appear to contest the State's calculations of the appropriate amounts due each District Awarding interest to the Districts under these circumstances - whether one calls it \"prejudgment'' interest or some other form of interest - would be inequitable. Accordingly, ADE respectfully requests that the Districts' motion be denied. 2 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorn eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify-that on September 27, 1999, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 Nations Bank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 1 1999 OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITOPJm; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for September, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attor General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 1999 iti:TI:~1;~~:~e~iw~i~zt~'tji,~~,i!l!~i~~f~ i/li~i~1r.ii~11ifll .~li~il(g'a.:m; 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1704","title":"Court filings: District Court, amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Report on the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; District Court, brief in support of response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","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. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1999-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Report on the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan''; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the districts' amended motion for an order directing the State to distribute the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance damages; District Court, response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; District Court, brief in support of response to Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and motion to modify settlement agreement; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"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/1704"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["80 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.  RECEIVED AUG 9 1999 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AMENDED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE DAMAGES For their amended motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) (the \"Districts\") state: 1. On February 18, 1997, this Court found that the state changed its method of funding the teacher retirement program to the detriment of the districts and in violation of the settlement agreement. This Court made the same finding with respect to the health insurance matching program on April 22, 1997. On July 1, 1998 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court's decisions with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance and directed this Court to decide what relief would be appropriate for the districts. 2. After a hearing, all of the other parties agreed to accept the state's proposed - methodology for calculating damages. That methodology is set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. See Exhibit A to \"Motion for an Order Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Undisputed Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance Damages,\" filed February 9, 1999. 3. On February 9, 1999 the districts asked the Court to order the state to pay the undisputed amount shown in Exhibit 504 for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years. On March 4, 1999, this Court entered the requested order. The districts' efforts to reach an agreement with the state for payment for the 1998-99 school year and future years have been unsuccessful. The districts must therefore seek an order from this Court requiring those payments. 4. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in September of each year using current year actual participation numbers. ~or the 1998-99 school year, the state should be ordered to immediately pay the districts the amount necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. The districts have agreed that the total amount of damages calculated according to the methodology set forth in Court's Exhibit 504 should be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and 10% to NLRSD. WHEREFORE, the districts pray that the state be ordered to immediately pay the districts' damages for the 1998-99 school year calculated in accordance with Court's Exhibit 504 subject to an amendment in September, 1999; and, using the methodology in Court's Exhibit 504, to reimburse the districts in future years on the same monthly schedule as equalization  funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made each September based on current year actual 2 participation numbers; and that the districts be awarded interest, costs, attorneys ' fees and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRJDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 ~ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT M. Samuel Jones WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-371-0808 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501-375-1122 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 51h day of August, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 Melissa Guldin Associate Monitor Norman Marshall Associate Monitor Horace Smith Associate Monitor u.s';fh.ED EASTi=RN o,srr,c ' '~.vRT ,, T t,,,,,,NS!\\S Report on the r. u ,.. l .ti ti l  ,-,09 Little Rock School District's  1 ..:.:., ' '1~ ~ . Preparations for Implementation of it~v-' ... :.:. .'.\" ::'.-.;-; f'L .::- .-  -.., Revised Desegregation and Education Pfair  .,_ -' K August 11, 1999 Office of Desegregation Monitoring l[.S. District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor - i:-;,~ Gene Jones Associate Monitor Margie Powell Associate Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVEO AUG 2 o 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONiTORINQ. LITfLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE DISTRICTS' \"AMENDED MOTION FORAN ORDER DIRECTING THE STATE TO DISTRIBUTE THE DISTRICTS' TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE DAMAGES\" On May 11, 1999, the Districts filed a motion requesting immediate partial payment of their fiscal year 1999 teacher retirement and health insurance \"damages.\" In that motion the Districts also requested that, for FY 2000, they should be paid such damages \"on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required numbers, with adjustments to be made in June of each year using current year actual participation numbers.\" In its response to that motion, filed May 25, 1999, ADE noted that the methodology used to create Court's Exhibit 504 - the methodology the Districts \"agreed to accept ... for calculating damages\" - requires full-year data on school district employee health insurance participation, for the Districts and for all other school districts in the State. Further, the methodology used to create Exhibit 504 also requires - full-year data concerning health insurance participation by employees of the ODM. As of the date of its response, such data was not available because FY 1999 had not ended and LRSD had not yet provided to ADE data concerning ODM employee health insurance participation for FY 1999. In their \"amended\" motion the Districts again ask for immediate payment of their teacher retirement and health insurance damages for FY 1999. In addition, the Districts have only slightly modified their proposed schedule for such damage payments for FY 2000. With respect to FY 2000 and beyond, the Districts now state: Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the state should be ordered to reimburse the districts each year on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current state minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments made in September of each year using current year actual participation numbers. Amended motion, ,r 4.1 With respect to the Districts' request for \"immediate\" payment of their FY 1999 retirement and health insurance damages, the motion is moot. ADE has now obtained complete full-year FY 1999 data on school district retirement costs and health insurance participation and has also received from LRSD full-year FY 1999 retirement and health insurance data for ODM employees, which has enabled it to perform the \"Exhibit 504\" 1 In its initial motion filed May 11, the Distric:ts correctly noted that there were issues concerning teacher retirement and health insurance\" damages\" that had not been resolved by this Court. The Districts' amended motion has deleted any reference to unresolved issues, but unfortunately unresolved issues still exist. LRSD and PCSSD have appealed this Court's June 16, 1999 order, in which this Court rejected the Districts' contention that they were entitled to damages to compensate them for more than 100% of their actual retirement and health insurance costs.  2 - damage calculations for FY 1999. See Exhib~t A hereto. The attached calculation and supporting paperwork have already been submitted to the Department of Finance and Administration and warrants payable to the Districts, in the amounts indicated on Exhibit A hereto, should be available shortly. The Districts' request for monthly payments during FY 2000, based upon some form of II averaging\" of prior year's participation data, should be denied. As the Districts admit, the Districts \"agreed to accept the state's proposed methodology\" for calculating damages, and that methodology clearly requires full-year actual cost data for the Districts and all other school districts in the State before the calculation may be performed. More important, though, is the fact that the Districts' proposal makes little sense in light of the way the Exhibit 504 calculations are performed and in light of the availability of the data necessary to perform the Exhibit 504 calculations. For example, as best ADE understands it, the Districts' proposal would require payments II on the same monthly schedule as equalization funding,\" which means that some sort of estimated payment would need to be made in August of each fiscal year. At the same time, however, the Districts' motion appears to concede th~t in some circumstances final data for the prior fiscal year's damage calculation might not be available until the September after the fiscal year has ended,2 and as the Districts know, information 2 Amended motion, 1 4 (requesting\" adjustments to be made in September of each year using actual participation numbers [for the prior fiscal year]). 3 concerning school district retirement matching costs is not available until sometime in October of the fiscal year. While ADE is willing to agree to some form of interim payment schedule in which estimated payment or payments would be made to the Districts at some point or points during the fiscal year with a final accounting and adjustment to be performed when compete fiscal year data is available, the \"monthly payment\" plan proposed by the Districts, as best ADE can understand it, makes little sense. Accordingly, the Districts' motion should be denied. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 19, 1999, I caused a copy of the . foregoing document to be served by first class U.S. Mail on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 5 \\ Page 1 State 1998-99 Equalization Additional Distribution Equalization Est. Total for Est Funding Pursuant Eimdin1 D!.lnifii11 D!.lnifit!I R!.lguir!.ld to Qrd!.lr / / Little Rock School District: $ 46,660,674 $ 14,681,738 $ 6,966,462 $ 7,616,276 $ 6,173,264 North Litlle Rock School District: $  26,187,899 $ 4,914,660 $ 3,917,710 $ 996,941 $ 1,028,877 Pulaski County Special School District: $ 66,864,014 $ 10,032,813 $ 8,367,266 $ 1,676,666 $ 3,086,632 State Totals: $ 1,340,461,886 $ 200,602,491 $ 200,633,098 $ 10,288,773 $ 10,288,773 14.96% ~('c . -,~ ~~ T ~ 11--:r r:\u003e ,1,.(. o~~ -\" ...... ._ ---- -------- RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1999 OFflCE 01- DESEGREGATIOtl MONITORING ufol6~cijRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C'OSRllT'J DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 7 1999 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: OEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO ADE AND MOTION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT For its Response and Motion, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. LRSD's revised Desegregation and Education Plan requires the reorganization of , LRSD's grade structure to employ the middle school concept in all schools including Magnet - Schools. The Arkansas Department ofEducation (\"ADE\") did not object to this aspect of the revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2. The Magnet Review Committee has approved a change in the grade structure and the number of seats at the Magnet Schools for the 1999 school year. According to the MRC's letter to the Court seeking approval of its action, the entire MRC, including the two ADE representatives, voted to change the grade structure and to increase the number of seats in the Magnet Schools. The MRC determined that ADE and the three Pulaski County School Districts should share the cost increase in the same proportion each party now pays to support the Magnet Schools. This is a fair and reasonable approach supported unanimously by representatives of all the parties concerned. 3. The MRC's May 7, 1999 letter to the Court asked the Court to approve a proposed increase in ADE's share of Magnet School funding in the amount of$567,270.00. With respect to the proposed increase in the number of Magnet School seats, the proposed cost increase, and the allocation of the increased costs among the parties, the MRC Chairperson told the Court: \"All MRC members agree to the described changes, and the MRC respectfully requests the Court's approval of these changes.\" 4. The ADE now objects to the changes proposed unanimously by the MRC. No other party has made an objection. The MRC's request should be approved by the Court. 5. The total number of seats potentially funded by ADE under the settlement agreement is 4,065. If the Court does not approve the MRC proposal in its entirety, the Court should at least require the State to continue to fund this number of seats regardless of the fact that the location of some of the seats has been changed because ofrestructuring. 6. The terms of the settlement agreement and the Allen letter obligate ADE to help LRSD achieve unitary status. Magnet Schools are an important part of that effort. A modification of the settlement agreement to permit the changes unanimously supported by the MRC would be a permissible modification of an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying Brief, LRSD requests a hearing and prays for an Order approving the MRC's action described in its May 7, 1999 letter to the Court and, if necessary, for an Order modifying the settlement agreement to the extent necessary to approve the MRC's action. 2 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on trusZ}__ ~y of August, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown VIA HAND DELIVERY 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 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A venue -==~ ~--- 3 9E~E!l'~~ ufol~~~RT .AUG 31 1999  OFFICEOF fGREGATION MONITORJNQ EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 7 1999 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W McCORMACK, Qbg~K By: -----'\"Rifl6DE\"P~m\u0026EfRfRi LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO ADE AND MOTION TO MODIFY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The MRC Correctly Decided the Magnet School Issue The Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") requires that LRSD change its grade structure: 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 6, 7 and 8 and move the 9th grade to High Schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right fo -change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including Magnet Schools. Revised Plan 3.4. No party objected to this requirement of the Revised Plan. The Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") is the policy making group which governs the Magnet Schools hosted by the Little Rock School District. The MRC is composed of representatives of the parties in the Pulaski County desegregation case with two representatives from the Arkansas Department of Education. On December 15, 1998, the MRC voted unanimously to approve a change in the grade structure and the number of seats at the Magnet Schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The reasons for that vote are set forth in the MRC Chairperson's May 7, 1999 letter to the Court seeking approval of the MRC action. The MRC decisions described in the May 7th letter are clearly the product of cooperative hard work by representatives of all the effected parties. Even though representation on the MRC is weighted in favor of the Arkansas Department of Education, the MRC members were able to reach a unanimous agreement about all of the issues related to restructuring the Magnet Schools. That agreement is well described in the May 7th letter which should be adopted by the Court. ADE's Position is Directly Contrary to its MRC Representatives The ADE has objected to the MRC action and now takes a position directly contrary to the position taken by its two representatives on the MRC. ADE argues that its funding obligations for the Magnet Schools should be limited in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The MRC clearly decided to proportionately increase the funding obligations of the three Pulaski County School Districts and the ADE and seeks the Court's permission to alter the terms of the Magnet School stipulation and the March 1989 settlement agreement to the extent necessary to implement its decision concerning restructuring of the Magnet Schools. ADE Should be Estopped to Oppose its MRC Representatives The representatives of the MRC worked on this issue for a long time before their December 15, 1998 decision. The ADE has been on notice for all of that time about the position taken by its representatives and, ultimately, the vote of the MRC. After all the time and effort devoted to this issue by the MRC, the ADE should not be allowed to take a position directly contrary to the position taken by its representatives and relied upon by the other members of the MRC for almost a year. This Court has the equitable power to prevent the State from attempting to nullify the position taken in good faith by the State's representatives on the MRC. The Eighth Circuit Court 2 of Appeals has previously addressed an estoppel argument in this case. In LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904,914 {8th Cir. 1995) the Eighth Circuit discussed Joshua's estoppel argument that LRSD should be barred from closing Ish because Ish's low attendance was due to LRSD's failure to implement its recruitment duties. The Eighth Circuit resolved Joshua's estoppel argument as follows: We have recognized that \"estoppel is an equitable doctrine, and it should not be given effect beyond what is necessary to accomplish justice between the parties.\" Maitland v. University of Minnesota, 43 F.3d 357, 364 {8th Cir. 1994). Justice would not be served by requiring Ish to remain open when the evidence indicates that the goal of desegregation will be served by closing it. Thus, Joshua's estoppel argument must fail. Id. at 915. In this case, however, the MRC's action in restructuring the Magnet Schools promotes desegregation. Thus, ADE could appropriately be estopped from attempting to reverse the position taken by its two representatives on the MRC. - Modification of the Settlement Agreement In addition to its equitable power to estop the ADE from taking a position contrary to its MRC representatives, this Court clearly has the authority to approve the MRC's action by granting a modification of the settlement agreement to the extent necessary to implement the MRC' s decision. The United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the Court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id. at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 866. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision to close Ish Incentive School and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students 3 to the new King Interdistrict School. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). It held that modification was appropriate where the modification furthered the goal of desegregation. Id. The Eighth Circuit's application of Rufo is consistent with the rule of equity which allows the Court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See e.g., Larkin Minnesota, Inc. v. Wray, 881 F.Supp. 1413, 1419 (D. Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified myriad changed circumstances which justify modification. See, e.g., Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Board. 978 F.2d 157 4, 1582 (11 th Cir. 1992) (\"Modification [ of a consent decree] may be considered when ( 1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or ( 4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side - has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). Therefore, the issue before the Court is whether the MRC action described in its May 7, 1999 letter would further the goal of achieving a unitary school system. The Magnet Schools were among the very first methods to promote desegregation agreed upon by the parties to this case. They predate the settlement agreement. It has always been a priority among the parties, through their representatives on the MRC, to make certain that the Magnet Schools are well run and adequately funded. The Magnet Schools have established a reputation as providing a high quality education in a racially balanced setting. The MRC' s decision makes good sense for the Magnet Schools and will enable those schools to continue to promote county wide desegregation. This Court should therefore 4 adopt and approve the action of the MRC described in its May 7, 1999 letter, even if it is necessary to modify the settlement agreement to the extent necessary to do so. The changed circumstance which required MRC action is the restructuring ofLRSD schools for educational reasons. The MRC's decisions about how the adjust the Magnet School program in response to restructuring are suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. They represent the minimum necessary change to the settlement agreement in order to fairly maintain the educational and financial foundations of the Magnet Schools. Conclusion The Arkansas Department of Education should be estopped from taking a position directly contrary to the position taken for the past year by its MRC representatives. If the Court determines that an estoppel is not appropriate in this case, the Court should modify the settlement agreement to the limited extent necessary to implement the MRC's decision. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-201 i 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this'Z7~ of August, 1999: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 6 Ms. Ann Brown VIA HAND DELIVERY 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 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 1  1999 Off!CH'f DESmRESA1UlY ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for August, 1999. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 31, 1999 i~!iiiifi~i;~iwdi~t~~~,j~,~!%.\\~~!~}ii~~lifiil!!il!~l:~~i~il'~411 i;ij t6i B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1735","title":"Court filings concerning the Pulaski Educational Cooperative, June 19, 1999, order concerning proposed change in grade structure and number of seats at magnet schools, and ADE motion concerning monitoring","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":["1999-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Standards","Magnet schools","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning the Pulaski Educational Cooperative, June 19, 1999, order concerning proposed change in grade structure and number of seats at magnet schools, and ADE motion concerning monitoring"],"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/1735"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Court's June 18, 1999, order and to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to the Court's June 19, 1999, order concerning proposed change in grade structure and number of seats at magnet schools; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to motion re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) motion concerning monitoring; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) notice of appeal; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of appeal; District Court, three orders; District Court, reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to motion re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative and supplement to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COURT'S JUNE 18, 1999 ORDER AND TO PCSSD'S \"MOTION RE THE PULASKI EDUCATIONAL COOPERATIVE The Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") hereby moves the Court for a - brief extension of time, to and including Friday, July 9, 1999, in which to respond to (a) the Court's June 18, 1999 order concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for 1999-2000, and (b) PCSSD's \"Motion re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. On June 18, 1999, this Court entered an order concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999- 2000 school year. The court's order allowed the parties to and including July 6, 1999, to file any objections to the MRC's proposal. 2. On June 23, 1999, PCSSD served by mail a document entitled \"Combined Motion and Memorandum re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" ADE's response to - this motion is due on or before July 7, 1999. 3. Undersigned counsel for ADE has been out of town on vacation from June 23, 1999, through July 5, 1999. ADE will therefore require a short extension of time, to and including Friday, July 9, 1999, within which to file its response to this Court's June 18, 1999 order and to PCSSD's motion concerning \"the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court enter an order extending ADE's time, to and including July 9, 1999, to respond to (a) the Court's June 18, 1999 order concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for 1999-2000, and (b) PCSSD's \"Motion re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Atto e G neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on July 6, 1999, a copy of the foregoing document will be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 7220i 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JIJl 1 2 1999 OFFICE OF DESE-aRfGATION MONITCREiG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S JUNE 18, 1999 ORDER CONCERNING PROPOSED GIANGE IN GRADE STRUCTIJRE AND NUMBER OF SEATS AT THE MAGNET SCHOOLS The Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") submits this response to the - Court'c _. ... ne 18, 1999 order. In that order the Court notes that the Magnet Review Committee, by letter dated May 7, 1999, seeks the Court's approval \"of a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year.\" The MRC' s May 7 letter to the Court assumes that the proposed changes in grade structure and number of seats will result in a significant increase in the State's share of funding for the magnet schools. Among other things, the MRC' s letter indicates that \"the costs associated with changes in seating will create an initial increase of $129 per student above the current funding level,\" and estimates that the State's share of funding for the magnet schools for 1999-2000 will increase by at least $567,270 over the State's current level of funding.1 ADE does not object to the proposed changes in grade structure for the magnet schools, nor does ADE object to an increase in the number of seats in the magnet schools for 1999-2000. ADE does object to the MRC' s proposal, however, to the extent it implies that the increases in enrollment will result in an increase in the State's funding level for the magnet schools. While the Settlement Agreement does not place any limits on the number of students who might attend the magnets, the Settlement Agreement does set specific limits on the State's funding obligations for the magnet schools. Paragraph II.D. of the \u0026tttlement Agreement provides that \"The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet schools other than under paragraph II. E. below.\" Paragraph ILE of the Agreement states, in pertinent part, that the State \"will continue to pay ... [t]he State's portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools .... \" Paragraph II.D. of the Settlement Agreement further provides: 1 It is not clear precisely how large this increase in funding will be. The State's funding level for 1998-99 as used in the MRC's projection does not take into account the 7.25% increase in salaries given to LRSD teachers in March, 1999, and the State's \"proposed funding'' level for 1999-2000 used in the MRC's projection does not take into account \"possible changes in salaries and basic operating costs for the 1999-2000 school year.\" It is clear from the MRC's May 7 letter, though, that the MRC assumes that some increase in the State's funding obligation can be expected due solely to the grade level\" restructuring and the increase in the number of seats. 2 Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. These seating capacities are as follows: Carver 613 Williams 515 Gibbs 351 Booker 660 Mann 935 Parkview 991 The Settlement Agreement thus makes it clear that, no matter how many students actually attend the magnet schools, the State's' funding obligations for the magnet schools are limited to its share of, for example, the costs associated with a maximum of 991 students at Parkview, 935 students at Mann, and so on. To the extent the MRC's May 7 letter implies that the State's share of magnet school funding will be increased due to the addition of 209 seats at Parkview, such an additional burden on the State would be in direct contravention of the Settlement Agreement. The costs associated with magnet student enrollment in excess of the seating capacities set forth in the Settlement Agreement should be borne either by the  LRSD, whose decision to restructure its schools necessitated the restructuring of the magnets and the concomitant changes in seating capacity, or by the Districts collectively. 3 Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General ~/4 /4~~-:: :r== TIMO (G. GApGER #95019 . Assistant Atto~ General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L Timothy Gauger, certify that on July 9, 1999, a copy of the foregoing document will be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ fi~~1fu~ ?1- -  ,., . ,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 1 2 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS ADE'S RESPONSE TO \"MOTION RE THE PULASKI EDUCATIONAL COOPERATIVE\" In this motion the PCSSD seeks an order requiring the State to distribute funds to an as-yet-to-be-formed education service coorr:!'c1tive1 (\"co-op\") that would serve only the three Districts. The motion is premised or .. PCSSD's belief that an appropriation contained in Act 1392 of 1999 entitles them to funds for such a co-op, and that conditional language restricting the disbursement contained in the appropriation is \"at variance with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement\" PCSSD's motion must be denied. This Court lacks jurisdiction to give PCSSD the relief it requests. Because the State has been dismissed from this action, this Court's jurisdiction over the State is 1 Education service cooperatives are \"intermediate service units in the state's elementary and secondary education system\" that are eligible to receive and spend state and federal funds. They exist to provide to school districts that choose to use them assistance in meeting accreditation standards, using educational resources more efficiently through cooperation among school districts,_ and promoting coordination between school districts and the ADE in the provision of certain services. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1002 limited to enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement (see Kokkanen u. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), and PCSSD does not allege that the State has breached the settlement agreement The Settlement Agreement does not compel or require the State to fund a co-op for the Districts. Indeed, quite the opposite is true - the Settlement Agreement acknowledges that state funding for a Pulaski County co-op had ceased, and that the co-operative had been dissolved, before the Agreement was signed. Settlement Agreement, section Ill E. (\"State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service [Cooperative] has ceased and the funds were reallocated to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court\"). PCSSD' s motion is in reality a somewhat convoluted request that the Court direct ADE to do what PCSSD 1'e1i~ves is required under State law. This Court must deny PCSSD's motion because PCSSD's attempt to enforce State law is not within the Court's Kokkonen-type jurisdiction over the State, and there is no other independent basis upon which this Court can base subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim. Such a state-law claim against the State is also barred by the Eleventh Amendment See, e.g., Pennhurst State School \u0026 Hosp. v. Halderman, 79 LEd.2d 67 (1984) (federal-court claims against state officials based upon alleged violations of state law are barred by Eleventh Amendment); Angela R. u. Clinton, 999 F.2d 320, 325 (8th Or. 1993) (Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from granting relief against state officials for violations of state law). Finally, even if this Court could exercise jurisdiction over PCSSD's claim, the motion must be denied because the Districts are not entitled to form a co-op and receive funds for such a co-op under either the Settlement Agreement or State law. Appropriations merely authorize the release of funds from the treasury, subject to other applicable laws including the Revenue Stabilization Act and other substantive law. Further, appropriations, by themselves, do not require that funds actually be disbursed. In this instance, the provisions of Act 1392 and the provisions of other substantive state law prohibit the release of funds for a Pulaski County co-op. Act 1392 prohibits the release of funds for a Pulaski County co-op because as of this date, no order has been entered by this Court relieving the State of its obligation to provide funds for the operation of the ODM. See Act 1392 of 1999,  17.2 In addition, the General Assembly has not amended or repealed other provisions of State law that prohibit the formation of a new, sixteenth CO-l.'P that would serve only the three Districts. See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1002 (authorizing State Board of Education to establish \"no more than fifteen\" cooperatives); Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1003(b)(l) and (b)(2) (cooperatives must include at least three counties and include at least ten school districts).3 2 PCSSD attempts to sidestep this restriction by arguing that the language conditioning the release of the funds  is \"at variance with the requirements of the Settlement . Agreement and must therefore fail and be severed from the Act\"  The problem with PCSSD' s theory is that the conditional language is consistent With the Settlement . Agreement As noted earlier, the Settlement Agreement does not require that the State fund a Pulaski County co-op, and the special language in the Act recognizes that the State's obligation to fund ODM can only be modifi~ by an order from this Court  3 Thus, even if PCSSD were correct that the contingency language in Section 17 of Act . 1392 is both inconsistent with the Settlement and can be severed from the Act the provisions of Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1002 and 1003 would nonetheless prohibit the  formation of a new \"16th co-op\" that would serve only the three Districts. For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that PCSSD's motion be denied, and that the ADE be awarded its costs and attorneys' fee incurred in responding to this motion. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General TIMOT q_ GAUGER #95019 Assistant Attorney G~neral --- 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L Timothy Gauger, certify that on July 9, 1999, a copy of the foregoing document will be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated:  M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1,3 1999 ~~~E~~- ~~~K,p C~AK OEPC~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER Without objection, the motion of the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") for an Order relieving it of its obligation to file a July 1999 semiannual monitoring report is hereby granted. In addition, the Court grants nunc pro tune AD E's motion for an extension of time until and including July 9, 1999, in which to respond to (a) this Court's June 18, 1999 Order - concerning a proposed change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for 1999-2000, and (b) PCSSD's \"Motion re the Pulaski Educational Cooperative.\" .-f1\\_ IT IS SO ORDERED this _j.d::_ day of 4--= 1999. 9;1'rruo~j- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH1s DOCUMENT ENTER C(.,MPUIJil WITH RULEED ON DOCKET SHEET fN ':)N L 3/ q Cl 58 AND/OR 79(1) FRCP   / BY m::: __j 2 u.s~(L, ,,,.f;,p C:ASTCR. ':,.;.;,': . .:_ v,111r,r .N DI~,, ,,1.,' ,, /~/1,l\"S \"S ' ,~, I-\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL l 1 1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 1999 WESTERN DIVISION ~;~MES \\V McCORM,iCK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. ,II 11 1 5 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NITOR~~FENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RELIEVE ADE MOTION CONCERNING MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors respond to the ADE motion concerning monitoring, served on June 28, 1999, as follows. The ADE motion was filed belatedly, rendering the request fait accompli. The - Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that ADE be ordered to file not later than Wednesday, August 4, 1999, their proposed new monitoring and reporting plan. Intervenors further respectfully request that the Court give priority to the development and approval of a new monitoring plan and require that the first report pursuant to that plan be filed not later than November 3, 1999. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 -1- Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this 14th day of July, 1999. Mr. Tim Humphries Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arknasas 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank. Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -2- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Towers 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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 JUI 1 6 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSA\u003c:; JUL 141999 JAMfil W, MaQQAMAGK, \"!:.EA ijy'-----~-- DEP.CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of its appeal from the order of the district court filed on June 16, 1999 which denied LRSD's request for certain damages related to teacher retirement and health insurance payments from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. This notice is filed based upon the understanding that the Arkansas Department of Education intends to appeal this court's decision awarding prejudgment interest to the districts on their claims concerning teacher retirement and health insurance. If ADE does not pursue such an appeal, this notice of appeal may be withdrawn. 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 Christopher Heller J. Clay Fendley CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the W following on this 14th day of July, 1999 : Mr. John W. 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 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 EDWARD L . WRIGHT ( 1903 1977) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A , SCOTT , JR . JOHN G . LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS I LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KI MBERLY WOOD TU CKER RAY F COX . JR . GOROON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L . MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A . GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS . JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATH LYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J, MULOROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C . PRICE CHARLES T . COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER . JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 7220 1-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBSITE : www .wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY M. TODD WOOD Writer 's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mj ones@wlj .com July 15, 1999 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark TROY A. PR ICE PATRICIA A. SI EVERS JAMES M. MOODY . J R. KATHRYN A PRYOR J . MARK DAVIS CL AIRE SHOWS HANCOCK K EVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KY LE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DONS. McKI NNE Y MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McK ENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORG E J ANDREW VI NES 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUI 1 6 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enciosed is a copy of Notice of Appeal which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 115616-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 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 IRi,,.-  ---- \\fEO DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. t' MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. 11\\ J' ,.:'.gg KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. \\ l\u0026\u0026REGI '\\TORlNG NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) hereby gives notice of its appeal from the order of the district court filed on June 16, 1999, which denied PCSSD's request for certain damages related to teacher retirement and health insu-rJ~J ~'::ll ~,( ~..l , _',; ; -~ i ' .,.  l s U:i~1-~ ~- ' .... .., payments from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). 11 5268-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 'Nest Capitol Avenua, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ~ M. amue Jones Ill (7~060) orneys or Pulaskl..eounty Special cha istrict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 1..5, 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 - RECEIVEt' JUL .2 o 1999 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL * DISTRICT No. 1, et al., * * Defendants. * * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * * Intervenors, * * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * * Intervenors, * ORDER JUL 181999 Before the Court is a motion by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for approval of a new school site (doc.#3266]. In its motion, which was filed June 9, 1999, PCSSD states that it'proposes to close both Bates and Fuller Elementaries and combine that student enrollment at a new site located at the northwest comer of 14S1h Street and Highway - 67/167 proximate to the Siemen's facility with no change of geo codes. The time for filing a response to this motion bas passed without a responsive pleading from any of the parties. Having considered the matter, and without objection from any of the parties, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion to approve the new school site described herein should be and hereby is granted. IT IS SO ORDERED this ii:_ ~ay of fl-4- 1999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS iN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL t 9 1999 JAMES f\" ~RMACK, CLERK 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 By: \\. i~U I) '\u003c'1'. -~ OEP CLERK No. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED JUL 2 o 1999 OFFICE OF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") filed a petition requesting that the Court grant PCSSD unitary status and release it from further court supervision [docket no. 3253]. The Joshua intervenors responded [docket no. 3253], and PCSSD replied to the response [docket no. 3260]. After careful consideration, the Court denies the petition and for reasons that follow will not, at this time, issue detailed findings regarding its decision. I. On October 14, 1997, PCSSD filed its first petition for unitary status, requesting release from federal court supervision over its desegregation efforts. 1 After receiving notice that the parties contemplated settlement discussions, the Court denied PCSSD's petition, without prejudice, noting the District's freedom to refile the petition if settlement efforts failed .2 1 Docket no. 3057. 2 Docket no. 3211. Presently hefore the Court is PCSSD's second petition requesting a declaration of unitary status. Additionally, PCSSD filed a document entitled \"Pulaski County Special School District Post Unitary Commitments,\" which sets forth actions PCSSD pledges to carry out in the event the Court grants the District unitary status. The commitments call for a dispute resolution process, whereby the Joshua intervenors could, as a last resort, seek the Court's assistance in resolving compliance issues.3 Thus PCSSD envisions that once it attains unitary status, the Court could retain jurisdiction over this matter. PCS SD explains it provided for the Court's continued jurisdiction \"as further evidence of its good faith view of desegregation issues and as such as a further matter for the district court to consider in assessing formal relinquishment of supervision .... \"4 However, the Court finds the provision for continued jurisdiction inapposite to whether PCSSD has achieved unitary status. This Court's jurisdiction depends on the existence of a constitutional violation. Once the PCSSD achieves unitary status and thus complies with the command of the Constitution, this Court's jurisdiction ends. See Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd of Educ. 91 S. Ct. 1267, 1276, 1284 (1971). The Joshua intervenors assert that PCSSD has not achieved unitary status and cite their prior submissions addressing PCSSD's 1997 petition to support their position.5 However, the intervenors believe the proposed commitments represent a \"renewed and more targeted\" plan that 3 Docket no. 3235, Attachment A, Pages 8-9. 4 Docket no. 3260, Page 3. 5 Docket no. 3079 (Opposition Response by Joshua to PCSSD's Motion for Release); Docket no. 3196 (Joshua's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning PCSSD's Motion for Release). 2 could serve as a new or-amended desegregation plan. With the sole exception of a provision concerning the duration of the cornmitments,6 the intervenors embrace PCSSD's proposed plan. In the past, the Court has encouraged the parties to amend their plan, if it would further their goals, and agrees that the proposed commitments would provide the basis for an acceptable amended plan and might even be suitable as a plan itself. II. The Court finds that PCSSD has not achieved unitary status and must deny the District 's petition. In light of the Joshua intervenors' recommendation that PCSSD's post-unitary commitments function as a basis for a revised desegregation plan, and the Court's desire to facilitate agreement among the parties, the Court will not, at this time, issue specific findings regarding its decision to deny the District's petition. If the parties can agree, such an agreement is preferable to court directives. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist., 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (8th Cir. 1990). As the parties are in agreement on all items except duration, it would be wasteful of their resources and effort to litigate the many issues concerning unitary status. In any event, duration will be determined, for the most part, by whether the District has achieved its desegregation goals. m. THEREFORE, PCSSD's petition for release from court supervision is hereby denied [docket no. 3253]. FURTHER, the parties have 120 days from entry of this Order to submit an amended desegregation plan for the Court's approval. 6 If the parties desire, the Court is willing to conduct a hearing concerning the duration of an amended plan. 3 FURTHER, in the event the parties do not reach an agreement, the Court will issue detailed findings regarding its denial of PCSSD's petition for unitary status. FINALLY, the time to appeal this Order will run from the date such detailed findings are filed. !TIS SO ORDERED 11-!IS / 'f ./i_DAY OF \u003c;)-, t2\" , 1999 ~)t;c UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN XiMPLJANCE Wirf ~LE 58 AND/n::1:1) FRCP , 1N '7//CJ  BY - I 4  IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, FiLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 1999 JAMES w. M~cc MACK, CLERK By: \\/_ - u ,'\\f\\\\ll,\"- 1 DP ClERll vs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. I, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, ORDER -JUL 21 1999 om:Ecr DESBHC-\\1 ~ ;roNITORI IJG Before the Court are a number of motions from the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") relating to attorney's fees and costs [see doc. #'s 3199, 3200, 3201 , and 3218]. The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), in tum, has before the Court a motion to defer consideration of LRSD's, PCSSD's, and NLRSD's respective motions for attorney's fees and - costs [doc.#3209]. The Court notes-that several of these motions are moot and the Court has been informed that other of these motions will be amended to address circumstances that have arisen since the initial motions were filed. That being the case, and so that the record will "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1721","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve new school site; District Court, three orders; District Court, combined motion and memorandum re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''1998-99 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a July 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","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":["1999-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School buildings","School facilities","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to approve new school site; District Court, three orders; District Court, combined motion and memorandum re: the Pulaski Educational Cooperative; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''1998-99 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, motion to relieve Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) from its obligation to file a July 1999 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"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/1721"],"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":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["90 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.  EDWARD L . WRIGHT ( U03- IQ77) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1 913  1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS l.LP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX . JR. GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS . JR . JOHN R, TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILL IAM SPIVEY Il l LEE J. MULDROW N.M . NORTON CHARLES C . PRICE CHARLES T . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER . JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER D. ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 7220 1-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376 -9442 WEBSITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wri ter ' s Direct Dial No . 501-212 - 1273 mj onesQwlj .com June 9, 1999 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M PERK INS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M . SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTER SON WHITE JANE M. FAULKNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUN 1 0 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING. Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's motion to approve new school site which is being filed today. MSJ/ao Encl. 108830-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP M. Samuel Jones, Ill 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. RECEIVED: JUN 1 0 1999' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN\u0026. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S MOTION TO APPROVE NEW SCHOOL SITE The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. In its post-unitary commitments recently filed with this Court for approval, the PCSSD pledged to construct a new elementary school in the southeast sector. 2. Pursuant to the Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, the PCSSD established a biracial building committee including representatives from the Office of Desegregation, all as specified at page 81 of the Plan. 3. The committee spent several weeks evaluating possible sites before recommending a site located at the northwest corner of 145th Street and Highway 67/167 proximate to the Siemen's facility. 4. Counsel for the PCSSD is informed that the ODM has been appropriately involved in the site selection process. 5. This process began some time ago with the view toward closing Bates  Elementary and simply shifting that student population to the new facility. As matters have evolved, the PCSSD now proposes to close both Bates and Fuller Elementaries 108803-v1 and combine that student enrollment at the new site with no change of geo codes. The PCSSD believes that by simply moving these enrollments to a new facility, that its proposal is race neutral and will have no negative impact upon its current desegregation efforts. However, at the same time, approval of this site will enable these present student bodies to enjoy the conveniences and benefits of a new school facility. 6. Attached as Exhibit A are the original offer and acceptance, including special conditions and the outstanding counter offer. Speciai Condition 2 d. provides that approval of this Court is necessary to finalize this transaction. 7. We further wish to advise the Court that there are current active discussions at the district level which, if finalized, would cause the configuration of the building to be constructed on this site to be that for kindergarten through 5th grade. To - accomplish this, Fuller Junior School would be reconfigured for 6th through 8th grades and Mills High School would be converted to grades 9 through 12. The district has, of course, made no final decisions regarding this, but the district felt the Court should be aware of these discussions and deliberations. If and when a decision to change the configuration is made, an appropriate filing with this Court will also be made. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the school site described herein be approved and that, upon completion of the new facility, that the present Bates and Fuller Elementary Schools be approved for closing. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By _ ~-1------+-=------- ) Special 2 ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 9 , 1999, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West 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 3 THE HATHAWAY GROUP I 00 MORGAN KEEGAN DRIVE, SUITE 120 LITTLE kOCK, ARKANSAS 72202 HA I OHT' 1.. I N O SEV - (591) 663-5400 OFFER \u0026 ACCEPTANCE  4 -l 1. BUYER \u0026 SELLER: Pulaski County Special School District, hereinafter referred to as \"Buyer,\" offers to buy, subject to the terms set forth ben,in. the below described property from The Dorothy Eosminier Trust. hereinafter rcfem:d to as '\"'Seller.\" 2. PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: Approximately 22.569 acres, being part of Tracts 27 and 28, Holman Acres, Pulaski County, Arkansa., mon, particularly described on Bxh.lblt B attached .. 3. PURCHASE PRICE: The Buyer will pay $135,400.00 for the property, payable all in cash at closing. 4. SPECIAL CONDffiONS: Buyer's Offer is conditioned upon satisfaction of the Special Conditions anached hereto on Exhibit A. 5. EARNEST MONEY: Buyer herewith tenders a check for $3,000.00 to be ~ upab accct,1'81-:c as earnest mooey which shall llJll)iy to purcbuc price or closina COit.i. \u0026mcst IDDDDY lball be mid In C9CroW by The Hathaway Group. If tide requin:IDCDU arc not fulfilled, or if thoao Special COllditiool providing for ID earnest moocy refuod UC not aatisficd. 1be earnest mooey deposit shall be refunded to Buyer. If Buyer fails to fulfill his obliptirm or if, after all cooditioi1' have been met, Buyer fails to cloae dlil tramacuoo. the earnest moocy may, at the 901c and cx.clmiYc optim of the Seller, be rctaiucd by the Seller as liquidau,d damages. Alrmnadvely, Seller may recum the eamesr money md uaert all lcpl or cquitlblc rigbta which may exist as a result of Buyer's breach of cootraa. 6 . CONVEYANCE: Convcyaoce shall be made to Buyer, or u mrc::am by Bu:yac, by general wammry deed, excepc It shall be subject to recorded restrictions aod easements, if my, which do D0t ma\u0026erlally affi:cl die property. 7. TJTI..8 INSURANCE: Within twenty-one (21) days of aix:cp(aDce, Seller shall fumiah to Buyer a cnmmirmcnt for an American Land TJtle .As3ociation (ALTA) owner's title insuraDcc policy in tbc amouot of tbc pun:base price issued by a compauy alllhom.ed to insure title to real property in the State of Arbnsas and which company is reuombly accepcable to Buya-. Where Um title commitment shows special excepdoos to title olber Ihm tbole ltandud exccptiom cootaincd in the ALT A commitmcat form. and where such special exa:prlom relare to rcstricdom, 011iMm. det=I or odJcr matters which would interfere with Buyer's use or adversely affi:ct the value of tbc premises, then wilmD fourteeu (14) days of delivery of the title C0111roitmmt, Buyer shall deliver written ootice thei'cof to Seller. Such nock:e \u0026hall awe speciftcally tboee eltCCJl(iom to which Buyer objects. All objecdoos not specifically enumerated within such a timely dclivcnxl DOticc shall be deemed to be waived by Buyer. Within fourteen (14) days of Buyer's delivery of noace of objecdom to Seller, Sell may cun, such objccdoos or baYC the exceptiom waived or removed by the title company issuing the oomrnilJJJtJUf U, witbin sucb fourt.ccn (14) day period, Seller fails to cure and/or have waived such objection., and excepdoas, or within that period, ScDer dclm:ni writlcu notice to Buyer that it will not so cmc, then. within three (3) days from delivery of Slr.b nodce from Seller or the eoci of tbc period within which Seller may CUJ'C (whichever ii applicable), Buyer shall have the option to: a. Tennioale this agreemem by ddlveriDg written nodcc thereof to ScUer, in which evcot all sums paid or dcpo5itcd by Buyer shall be returm:d to Buyer; or b. Purchase the premises subject to such objectioos and~ with no rccluctioo in the purchase price; or c. A\u0026rCC to extend tbc closin\u0026 date for thirty (30) days, to give Seller addiJiooal time ID cure such objectiolls. Ir Buyer falls to deUVer notice of termiDation or grant an extemioo of tbe closing date within that period. the objcctioos shall be deemed to be waived and this condition shall be sarlsfiod. Seller lball furnish tbe commincd owner's title iDsuraDce policy as IOOll u pnctlcablc after c:loliug, and shall pay all expcmcs related to the OWDer's title insurance policy. EXHIBIT I /J WR IGHT L. tNOS E .,  IJ. .PRORA TIONS: Taxca and special assesnnems due 011 or before cl01tn, shall be paid by Seller. ADY dcpoaita oo raJU1 property \u0026re ~ be transfcncd to Buyer at closing. Imunmce, cunm geueral wes and special VSCSSJDl'UI, r'Clllal ~ utilities, and any interest on assumed loam shall be prorated at closing unless odlerwise specified herein. CLOSING: Closina shall occur at such time as mutually agreed by the partiel, provided that the dale shall be no later lban August 31. 1999, unless such rcquircmcut is waived in writiDg by both parties and a new date substituted tbcretor. Unless oberwiae agreed by Buyer and Seller, tramacdo.n costs will be paid by the party indicated below: Scllcr:  Title examination or search fees, Premium for owner's title insurance policy, IRS notification form, Preparation of conveyance documents, One-half of escrow fees., Onebalf of doaimeowy stamps, Other charges as customarily paid by Seller. Buyer. Premium for mortgagee's title in:s1U1111cc policy,  Recording fees, Preparation of loan dOCIIIllents, One-half of oscrow foec, One-half of documentary stamps. Other charges customarily paJd by Buyer. 10. POSSESSION: Poi.seaion shall be delivered to Buyer upon the closing dale. 11. A TI ACHED FIX1URES AND EQUIPMENT: Unless specifically excluded herein, all attached fixtures 111d equipment, if any, are included in the purchase price. 12. INSPEC110NS AND REPAIRS: Buyer certifies that Buyer has inspected or will inspect tho property and is not relying upon any wammtic,. repn:scntatioru or statcmeotll of any a\u0026cnt or Seller as to age or condition of improvements, other than those specified herein. 13. RISK OF LOSS: lf prior to closiog of this ttaosaetloo the lmprovemmm on the property shall be destroyed or m.at.crially damaged by nre or other casualty. tills comract sball, at tbc opt1oD or lbe Buyer, be null and void. If Buyer shall elect, in the cvem of such lou, Chat the comnict lbalJ be performed, he shall be cotitlcd to the proceeds of iu\u0026urani:e applicable to the loss for use in repel.rfng said loss. 14. MISCELLANEOUS: - L This Offer and Ac:ccptaDcc shall be goYClllCd by the 1awa of the Stale of Arlcamas. b. lb.is Offer and Accepcmce, iDcludillg all cxhibkl, contains the compl= agreement bctMcn tho parties and cannot be vuicd ex.c:cpt by writa qr-ccmcut by the panics. The partica a,rco lba1 there are no oral agreemcnta, unde~. representations or warranties which are oot expressly set funh herein. c. Any portion of this Offer and Au eptauce JJDt odJerwise \u003cxDRJrnrnated 'It closing wUl surviYe the closing of this n-anslld:loa aa i:i coodnning agm:mem by aod between lbe parties. d. This Ofm' ilOd Accepc.uu, \u0026ball inure to the benefit of md bind the panie., hereto and their rC3Jiective heirs, rcprcscntativcs, suca:ssms, and assigns. c. Tune is of the caax:e witb respect 10 this Offer and Acccptancc. 15. ACCEPTANCE: The tam-~ .. a UICd hcl'cio shall rm thc larer of thc two dates oo which this Offer and Acceptance Is sipcd by Seller Ol' Buyer, u iDdicared by dlelr sipalUrCI below, whicb later date shall be the date of final execution and agreemem by die putiel hereto. If my dat.e or deadline provided for herein ran. on Saturday, Sunday, or a holiday. the applicable dale shall be the next bmioca day. 16. AGENCY: By virtue of The Hathaway Group's Exclusive Listing Agreement with Seller covering this Property, and The Hathaway Group's Exclusive Agency agreement wi1b Buyer, dated March 15, 1999, Seller and Buyer heRby aclmowlcdgc and agree lbal the Usdog/Sellillg Agem Firm and all licellled pe1101111el ISIOcialed with the Listing/Selling Agcat Firm are representing both Buyer and Scllei- in the purchase md sale of Ille abo't'e relereoccd Property and 1ba1 Listing/Selling Agem F'll1D bas been and is now the agent of bath Scllec and Buyer with ~ 10 this cramactioa, Seller and Buyer have both consented to, and hereby confirm their oonsent to 1FDCY repn:se:otatiao ofbacb parties. Further, Seller alJd Buyer: 2 WR I GHT 1,..I N OSE ., a. agree dial tbe J..istiu\u0026ISelliD\u0026 Agent F'um shall DDl dia::1olo to either Buyer or Se1lc:r aay penoaal, fimucia.l or OCher con.f1dcm1a1 information cooccmmg the olber puty witboul the cxprea wriUm comm or that party. This rcstrictioo doea DOt include ':nformation actually known by Li.sting/Selling A.gm. Firm which IWSt, at Ustiug/Sellioa A\u0026CDt Pirm'a dJscrction. be disclosed. b. aclalowledge ncdfiadoo lbat when Ustina/Sellinl Aacnt rum ,epreaem bodi partica, a coaflic:t of imercst CAD arise, and Seller and Buyer further agree to forfeit their individual right to receive the uodividcd loyalty of Llsting/Sclling Agent Firm. It is understood, however, that Luling/Selling Agent F\"srm is obligated to treat each party fairly and equitably. c. waive any claim now or hereafter arising out of aay c:onffictl of interest from Listing/Selling A\u0026cnt -P-liln rcp~nting bodl parties. Buyer and Seller acknowledge tbe Listiag/Selliag Agent F1rm di9cmed that the L\u0026ting/Sdliaa Agaat F1rm rcpr'CXlltl both partic., ill this tnmactioa, and Daya- md Sellrr ban ghm tbefr couseld to th1I representation before entering into this Offer 1111d Ac:ceptaDce. d. agree that Llsdng/Selliog Ageot P-um'a fee shall be paid by Sell only. 17. EXPIRATION OF OFFER: This offer shall expire unlcsa accepted in writing bySclltrbcfore S:00 p.m. oo June 8, 1999. SELLING AGENT FIRM: The Hathaway Group Jeffrey~(, ~-- s~---1 Urtr:Jr-.....-\"'~'~prtd _________ 1999 at __ AM/PM. w~ ag,w to pay 1M llaw nanwd agar/ a Ju for profusiotlal urvku r in Sffllnllg said o/fer, as ~ in a HJ)Q1'QU listing agnanDII. If for (1lfJ reason w eamt!SI money Af'_TC1VU'kd for lwmn is forfeit, u under the provisions herro/. same shall be divided apllJlly bt:twlln Sd/Lr and Listing .Agmt -Firm after payTMnl of inaured apauu. LISTING AGENT FIRM: . The Hathaway Group ingerTrust J.E. Hathaway, Jr. - Agent Date Supervising Broker Date 3 e - 9--39 : t: -l 9PM ;0 1 S;\"Q 1cr .:::,F = C E wA  C t--1 r L.. , ,._,CSE .,, EXHIBIT B ..: .ar- . , --- S ...... '- -,,---.. 11ft ,.. ---- I ._(.t z.. ' taOf'Ellff Daelll\"r~ Pn et Tr.eta a, 1'4 21 Mel ... Aar ... hllll eouncy. u~. -r partlcularlr deac\u0026\"lbe4  co-Mlft9 ac ~ i11Mtnecr4;1011 ot ne ~ rl.,,ac-ot-var u,.. et \u0026aac Uldl '\"-tend ta. W.at ri11u:-.t-var Une et Dln.11 Del ~-.. ~ l~  , ..... , dqac-af-vr , ... llocUI oo n 40 bsc ,,,.1., teec u u.. 101n or 10::tnucc, tJ\\eaae Nertll  11  .- w.et JCM.51 feecr CMACe SouU oo oc \u003eo vcc 1s,.co , .. c to  poi\"c \" ~ Eaatedy ri48'tot- y u .. or U.S. Ni,aw.y W.. H-161r U..nca alon9 tUld .-1.8'C-e(-V.f UM ua oUovl-, IOUI' ... , bearlnq and dlt.a- 1).IIOru. a,,., \u003eo W..t i10.2t r-.t, JI 110n.a  \u003e s7 w.ac 6a\u0026.oJ t .. c, )) .-oru. s, \u003e 41 w.ac 110.,~ r .. c, c) !llonll 02 \u003eo ,.,. Vet a\u003ec.os fti ~ace SCNta n H' M caac UtJ.n , .. c ~  polnt oa ~ v.ac rlc,Ac_f_J' u .. of Di,.._ DdI '-\"\"el..-. .. ,. l'l.hC ot--r souc.11  11 co w.ac n1.,1 , .. ,, CAanC:41 co.clMalftt 1---. lei rl9~c-ot-r 0A a~ COCM ci.hc 11\u0026vl1119  ra4l- et 71S.6\u0026 , .. c. ell aro dlat.AIIOe of ltt.15 f~ Uld  c::IIOnl vt1icll ~r Souu. oa 11 5\u0026 v.ac 1,,.20 feec, Uaw: con~llllll\"'f IOAtf  ,. rl'fl\\C-O(-vay Souc- 1, 20 .,. Vc 20.ao fec, ua.nco CCM1Cl11111-, al ... a.\u0026 rl~hc-ef-.r on cwrv to t.h4 letc a.v11WJ  rulua of ,1s.1, fNc. \u0026A arc dlaUftCa ot 200.05 f-~ AM CMC'1I lltlicll be~ SovQ Ot l' 21 Vt lt , .. c, ~ CGCIClnulnq IOftlll aald rlqllC-f-vey SOUC!I oo ff' U V.C 25.tO feet to CM ,01111' or am11a11-.. c0Aul11l11o9 a,.~,, ecr aor oc l RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - JUN 2 4 1999 OfflCE OF DcSEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 1, 6 1999 JAMES,~MACK, CLERK By: L~ADtv\\iL\".., OEP CLER;\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors,       No. LR-C-82-866                   ORDER On July 1, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down an opinion on the issue of funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers and directed this Court to decide, in the first instance, exactly what relief is appropriate. See Little Rock School Dist. v. North Little Rock School Dist., 148 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 1998). The Court stated as follows: The three Pulaski County School Districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old 3257 system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be a double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. This means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system - MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance - would have produced, and what the new system - Equalization Funding in one lump sum - is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation. Admittedly it cannot be exact, but we believe that the District Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. 148 F.3d 956, 968. The Eighth Circuit's mandate was filed in this Court on August 17, 1998, and the parties subsequently submitted papers setting forth their respective views on the matter. A hearing on this issue was held on January 6, 1999, following which the parties filed post-hearing briefs on the issues raised at the hearing. Thereafter, the three Pulaski County school districts - the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") (hereinafter ''the districts\") - filed a motion for an Order directing the State of Arkansas to distribute the districts' undisputed teacher retirement and health insurance damages. The State, by and through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), responded in opposition to the districts' motion, and the districts filed a reply to ADE's response. By Order dated March 4, 1999, this Court granted the districts' motion, noting that there was no dispute to be resolved as to the appropriate methodology for determining the districts' damages with regard to teacher retirement and health insurance - all parties having agreed on the ADE's proposed methodology- and that all parties were in agreement that the districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504, which total $20,380,490.00. The 2 Court thus ordered that the State of Arkansas make payment to the districts in the amount of $20,380,490.00, to be distributed as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCS SD, and 10% to NLRSD. In so ruling, the Court stated that it would resolve in due course whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State, and whether the districts are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. It is those issues to which the Court now turns. The districts first contend that in order to provide equal funding to the districts, the starting point for their damages should be 106% of their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs -- a percentage they state is approximately the same percentage of teacher retirement and health insurance costs paid by the State to all other school districts in Arkansas1 - and that to provide less is discriminatory and in violation of the Order of the Eighth Circuit. The ADE, however, argues that such a remedy would result in a windfall to the districts that the Eighth Circuit stated was improper, and that the districts' damages should be based on their actual teacher retirement and health insurance costs rather than the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. The Court has considered the matter and agrees with the ADE that the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. In directing this Court to determine the appropriate relief to be accorded the districts, the Eighth Circuit only required that the districts \"should be placed in a position no worse than they would 1 See Mem. Br. in Sup. of Mot. for an Ord. Directing the State to Distribute the Districts' Und. Teach. Ret. and Health Ins. Damages, at 2. 3 have occupied if the previous system of funding for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed,\" and stated that the \"districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change.\" I 48 F.3d 956, 968. In this regard, there can be no doubt that requiring the State to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance will make the districts whole as envisioned by the Eighth Circuit. The I 06% figure cited by the districts constitutes the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State and ignores the fact that some school districts received more and some received less. Accordingly, this Court determines that requiring the State to pay the districts I 00% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance will hold them harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. The districts also contend they are entitled to an equitable award of prejudgment interest  - to compensate them for the State's delay in paying the districts' teacher retirement and health insurance costs. They note that the \"adverse effect of the funding change\" to which the Eighth Circuit held they are entitled to be held harmless against has manifested itself in many ways, including deprivation of funds -- or the use of funds -- to which they have been entitled since 1996. The ADE, however, argues that the districts have cited no case in which prejudgment interest has been awarded in circumstances similar to the case at bar, and that the districts in any case are not entitled to such an award as the amount of the underlying liability is not reasonably capable of assessment. The Court has considered the matter and determines that the districts are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest. Whether or not the districts have cited similar cases in which prejudgment interest has been awarded is of no import as the Court finds that under these 4 circumstances such an award against the State is proper. Prejudgment interest serves purposes of making a claimant whole, promoting settlement, and deterring attempts to benefit unfairly from inherent delays in litigation, and should ordinarily be granted unless exceptional or unusual circumstances exist making the award of interest inequitable. Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Indus., Inc., 783 F.2d 743, 752 (8th Cir. ) cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1141 (1986). The Court finds no exceptional or unusual circumstances in this case that would make an award of prejudgment interest inequitable, and such an award comports with the Eighth Circuit's directive that the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change implemented by the State. Contrary to the suggestion of the ADE, existing case law allows an award of prejudgment interest against a state defendant in a case such as this. In Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 - (1989), the Supreme Court held that adjusting an attorney's fee award against a state under 42 U.S.C.  1988 to account for delay in payment was appropriate and not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 284. In so ruling, the majority specifically rejected the view, expressed by the dissent, that the Eleventh Amendment requires an \"ultrastrict rule of construction for interest awards\" comparable to the \"federal no interest rule.\" Id. at 281 n.3 . Based on Jenkins, the Eighth Circuit has refused to impose a strict rule of construction protecting state defendants against prejudgment interest awards, see Winbush v. State of Iowa, 66 F.3d 1471 , 1483-84 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that under Title VII and its \"make whole\" policy, courts have the power to award prejudgment interest against state defendants), and, as noted in Winbush, other circuits likewise have rejected such a strict construction. See Reopell v. Massachusetts, 936 F.2d 12, 15 5 (!51 Cir.) (noting that \"interest is includible [against a state defendant] if, under nonnal litigation principles and rules of statutory construction, a court could have been expected to allow prejudgment interest on the underlying recovery\"), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1004 ( 1991 ); Pegues v. Mississippi State Employment Serv., 899 F.2d 1449, 1454 (5th Cir. 1990) (noting that \"Congress did not limit the tools with which courts.could fashion relief to victims of discrimination perpetrated by state defendants\"). Nor does the Court find any merit to ADE's argument that an award of prejudgment interest is not reasonably capable of assessment. All parties have agreed -- and this Court has found -- that the districts are entitled to at least the amounts shown on Revised Exhibit 504, which total $20,380,490.00, and today's decision establishes that the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance rather than l 06%. - Thus, the amount of the underlying liability is in fact reasonably capable of assessment. 2 That being so, and there being no exceptional or unusual circumstances in this case that would make an award of prejudgment interest inequitable, the Court agrees with the districts that they are entitled to an equitable award to compensate them for the State's delay in paying them teacher retirement and health insurance costs. In sum, the Court finds that the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of their costs for teacher retirement and health insurance, and finds that the districts are entitled to an 2 The Eighth Circuit calculates prejudgment interest at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C.  1961. Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322, 1331 (8111 Cir. 1995) (citing Dependah/ v. Falstaff Brewing Corp, 653 F.2d 1208, 1219 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 968 (1981)). In this regard, 1961 provides for calculation of interest \"at a rate equal to the coupon issue yield equivalent (as detennined by the Secretary of Treasury) of the average accepted auction price for the last auction of fifty-two week United States Treasury bills settled immediately prior to the date of judgment.\" 6 award of prejudgment interest. The Court directs the districts to submit a proposed judgment consistent with this Order within twenty (20) days of the date of its entry. IT IS SO ORDERED this j1,_~ y of ~ 1999. ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPU~:: wmi/WLE 56 AND/OR 79(\u0026) FRCP JN .JeJJk/TI.. ev_n=-JU----- 7 \\ J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT No. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN f r3 1999 JA~AES 1 MC~ACK, CLERK By. \\  :;:;;~-2. ~ J, ,LL\\ Q,, 0EP CI.Bt( RECE.fVED JUN 2 2 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court by the chair of the MRC in a letter dated May 7, 1999 ( attached). The Court will allow the parties until and 3269 - including July 6, 1999, in which to object to MRC's request. Should no objections be filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order approving MRC's request. !TIS SO ORDERED this / f 11)ay oKr ., 1999. ~)~)t;u UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH/S D0cUMENT ENTE ~c MPLIANce WITH Ru~l~ ON DOCKET SHEET IN )N ~ /J-1/ a q AND/OR 79(1) FR(jp -~-1--.r.J.--,';Lf-.~~~~L_ !Y try : ~ 2 . ~~~!\"\" ..;;\":.~   ~ :;::?:__.,*. -Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 May7, 1999 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright\" Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 15, 1998 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee tMRC\"l approved a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the magnet schools for the 1999-2000 school year. This letter is a request for Court approval of this MRC action. t kt The changes approved by the MRC result from the restructuring of schools in the Little Ro~ School District nRSDl to accommodate middle schools rather than the traditional grade  arrangements in elementary, junior high, and senior high schools. The Magnet School Stipulation, dated February 27, 1987, and the March 1989 Settlement Agreement, as revised September 28, 1989, describe the magnet schools' structure and establish the enrollment at each. Because the MRCs action alters the terms of those agreements and adds 132 seats to the K- 12 magnet program, the Magnet Review Committee requests your approval of the changes described below. The LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan calls for the reconfiguration of grade structure from the traditional elementary, junior high, and senior high to allow for middle schools to house grades 6, 7, and 8. If the magnet schools are to conform to the administrative structure of other LRSD schools, the four elementary magnets must serve grades K-5, the middle school magnet school must serve grades 6-8, and the high school magnet must serve grades 9- 12. The results of moving the sixth grade to middle school and the ninth grade to high school in the magnet program as approved by the MRC are describ "}],"pages":{"current_page":13,"next_page":14,"prev_page":12,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":144,"total_count":413,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":412},{"value":"StillImage","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":135},{"value":"Oklahoma. Supreme Court","hits":34},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":16},{"value":"United States. Supreme Court","hits":7},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":5},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":5},{"value":"Freeling, S. P. (Sargent Prentiss), 1874-1937","hits":4},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":3},{"value":"Van Leuven, Kathryn, 1888-1967","hits":3},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":163},{"value":"School integration","hits":160},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":136},{"value":"Race riots--Oklahoma--Tulsa--History--20th century","hits":132},{"value":"Tulsa (Okla.)--Race relations","hits":132},{"value":"Tulsa (Okla.)--Social conditions--20th century","hits":132},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":130},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":129},{"value":"Police misconduct--Oklahoma--Tulsa","hits":126},{"value":"Police--Oklahoma--Tulsa","hits":126},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":113}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Gustafson, John A.--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":129},{"value":"Fisher, Ada Lois Sipuel, 1924-1995--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":34},{"value":"Freeling, Sargent Prentiss, 1874-1937","hits":21},{"value":"Van Leuven, Kathryn, 1888-1967","hits":10},{"value":"Seaver, W. F., 1849-","hits":9},{"value":"Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":5},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":5},{"value":"Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961","hits":3},{"value":"Seavers--Trials, litigation, etc.","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Gustafson, John A.","hits":129},{"value":"Fisher, Ada Lois Sipuel, 1924-1995","hits":33},{"value":"Freeling, Sargent Prentiss, 1874-1937","hits":21},{"value":"Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961","hits":6},{"value":"Adams, E. A. (Eugene Avery), 1886-1968","hits":1},{"value":"Briggs, Harry, -1986","hits":1},{"value":"Ferguson, John H. (Judge)","hits":1},{"value":"Marshall, Thurgood, 1908-1993","hits":1},{"value":"Plessy, Homer Adolph","hits":1},{"value":"Robertson, J. B. A. (James Brooks Ayers), 1871-1938","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":240},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":232},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":232},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":168},{"value":"United States, Oklahoma, Tulsa County, Tulsa, 36.15398, -95.99277","hits":132},{"value":"United States, Oklahoma, 35.49209, -97.50328","hits":35},{"value":"United States, Kansas, Shawnee County, Topeka, 39.04833, -95.67804","hits":7},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Texas, 31.25044, -99.25061","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":232},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":167},{"value":"Kansas","hits":7},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":5},{"value":"Texas","hits":2},{"value":"Alabama","hits":1},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":1},{"value":"Georgia","hits":1},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":1},{"value":"New York","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1921","hits":129},{"value":"1946","hits":37},{"value":"1947","hits":37},{"value":"1948","hits":37},{"value":"2011","hits":30},{"value":"1997","hits":29},{"value":"1996","hits":25},{"value":"2002","hits":19},{"value":"2001","hits":18},{"value":"1998","hits":16},{"value":"2010","hits":15},{"value":"1999","hits":14},{"value":"2003","hits":12},{"value":"2000","hits":11},{"value":"2004","hits":10},{"value":"1954","hits":9},{"value":"1995","hits":9},{"value":"2007","hits":9},{"value":"2005","hits":8},{"value":"2009","hits":8},{"value":"2006","hits":7},{"value":"2012","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":6},{"value":"1953","hits":6},{"value":"2008","hits":6},{"value":"1923","hits":5},{"value":"1955","hits":5},{"value":"1957","hits":5},{"value":"1949","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1959","hits":4},{"value":"1960","hits":4},{"value":"1961","hits":4},{"value":"1962","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"1964","hits":4},{"value":"1965","hits":4},{"value":"1966","hits":4},{"value":"1967","hits":4},{"value":"1972","hits":4},{"value":"1974","hits":4},{"value":"1994","hits":4},{"value":"1896","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1938","hits":3},{"value":"1939","hits":3},{"value":"1940","hits":3},{"value":"1941","hits":3},{"value":"1942","hits":3},{"value":"1943","hits":3},{"value":"1944","hits":3},{"value":"1945","hits":3},{"value":"1968","hits":3},{"value":"1969","hits":3},{"value":"1970","hits":3},{"value":"1971","hits":3},{"value":"1973","hits":3},{"value":"1975","hits":3},{"value":"1976","hits":3},{"value":"1977","hits":3},{"value":"1978","hits":3},{"value":"1979","hits":3},{"value":"1980","hits":3},{"value":"1981","hits":3},{"value":"1982","hits":3},{"value":"1983","hits":3},{"value":"1984","hits":3},{"value":"1985","hits":3},{"value":"1986","hits":3},{"value":"1987","hits":3},{"value":"1988","hits":3},{"value":"1989","hits":3},{"value":"1990","hits":3},{"value":"1991","hits":3},{"value":"1992","hits":3},{"value":"1993","hits":3},{"value":"1772","hits":2},{"value":"1773","hits":2},{"value":"1774","hits":2},{"value":"1775","hits":2},{"value":"1776","hits":2},{"value":"1777","hits":2},{"value":"1778","hits":2},{"value":"1779","hits":2},{"value":"1780","hits":2},{"value":"1781","hits":2},{"value":"1782","hits":2},{"value":"1783","hits":2},{"value":"1784","hits":2},{"value":"1785","hits":2},{"value":"1786","hits":2},{"value":"1787","hits":2},{"value":"1788","hits":2},{"value":"1789","hits":2},{"value":"1790","hits":2},{"value":"1791","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1493","max":"2017","count":1304,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"judicial records","hits":413},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":45},{"value":"affidavits","hits":16},{"value":"briefs (legal documents)","hits":5},{"value":"correspondence","hits":3},{"value":"memorandums","hits":3},{"value":"decisions","hits":2},{"value":"forms (documents)","hits":2},{"value":"government records","hits":2},{"value":"legal documents","hits":2},{"value":"petitions","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":232},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":38},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":7},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":232},{"value":"Tulsa Race Massacre Collection","hits":132},{"value":"Ada Lois Sipuel v. Board of Regents University of Oklahoma, 1948-","hits":33},{"value":"Records of the Supreme Court of the United States 1772 – 2007","hits":6},{"value":"New insights in the American civil rights movement: South Carolina Council on Human Relations records","hits":2},{"value":"Eugene Avery Adams Papers, 1892-1968","hits":1},{"value":"Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History: The Collection","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":232},{"value":"Oklahoma. Department of Libraries","hits":166},{"value":"United States. National Archives and Records Administration","hits":7},{"value":"Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History","hits":2},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":2},{"value":"Dwight D. Eisenhower Library","hits":1},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":1},{"value":"Tarlton Law Library","hits":1},{"value":"United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Atlanta Branch","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":407},{"value":"Collection","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":413}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}