{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1684","title":"Court filings concerning attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants and remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1998-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants and remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1684"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"Court of Appeals, ruling; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; Court of Appeals, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, joint submission of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, joint motion to extend time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for further extension of time to file reply briefs concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  , -y 06 / :I0 / 98 14 : 42 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS Member of the Pulaski County Board * of Education, a Public Corporate; and * Thomas Broughton, Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member * of the Pulaski County Board of * Education, a Public Corporate; * * Defendants, * * Arkansas Department of Education, * * Respondent, * * Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. * * Submitted: February 24, 1998 Filed: July 1, 1998 Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, 1 Chief Judge, HEANEY and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. 1TI1e Hon. Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He has been succeeded by the Hon. Pasco M. Bowman II. -20- . 023 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 43 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ~024 In these appeals we are asked once again to interpret certain provisions of the agreement by which the parties to the Pulaski County, Arkansas, school-desegregation case settled their dispute. The question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated that agreement. The Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District (which we shall collectively call \"the districts\") claim that by making the changes in question the State violated undertakings it made in the settlement agreement. The District Court, Susan Webber Wright, J., held for the districts on summary judgment. We affirm. I. This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance. When the parties agreed to settle this case, in 1989, the extant system of school funding by the State of Arkansas provided for direct payment by the State of both of these categories of costs. The General Assembly appropriated funds eannarked for these purposes. These funds were separate from another, larger, appropriation for general State aid to public school districts, generally known as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). We shall call this system of funding, under which the State separately paid for teacher retirement and health insurance, the Act 34 system, after Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.), codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Repl. 1993) (repealed in large part 1995). In 1995, the General Assembly enacted a new system of school funding. Separate appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance were no longer made. Each local school district, including the districts involved in this case, was required to pay its own contributions for teacher retirement, Act 1194 of 1995,  13, codified as Ark. Code Ann.  24-7-103 (Michie Repl. 1996), and health insurance, Act 1194 of 1995,  14, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1117 (Michie Supp. 1997). -21- I _, 06 / :10 / 98 1 4 : 4:1 '5'3 14 539 3945 Districts began to receive their State aid in one large pot, so to speak, combining what had been called :MFP A with funds that under the previous system had been earmarked for teacher retirement and health insurance. (There were refinements and exceptions to this system, but our general description is sufficient for present purposes.) Under Act 917 of 1995, codified as Ark. Code Ann.  6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Supp. 1997) -- the Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995, this new general fund was apportioned among the several districts in accordance with two main criteria: the number of pupils, called Average Daily Membership (ADM), and the wealth of the districts, with poorer districts getting relatively more money, in order to reduce the disparity in per-pupil expenditures between the poorer and the wealthier districts across the State. This change was made in response to a decision of the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, which had held the disparity in funding violative of the State Constitution. Lake View Sch. Dist. v. Tucker, No. 92-5318 (Pulaski Co., Ark., Ch. Ct., Nov. 9, 1994). The difficulty with this change, from the point of view of the three Pulaski County districts, was that it affected, to their disadvantage, the basis on which funds from the State would be available to them for teacher-retirement and health-insurance purposes. These districts, as we shall explain further later in this opinion, are \"employee heavy.\" They have proportionally more employees, including teachers, than they have pupils, when compared with school districts generally throughout the State. This is so at least partly because of special desegregation obligations imposed on the districts by the settlement agreement. Funds distributed according to a formula heavily influenced by ADM, therefore, are not so great as they would be if the earlier system, which simply funded retirement and health insurance for all employees, generally speaking, had been continued. During fiscal year 1995-96, the sum total of State aid received by the districts was more, in absolute dollar terms, than it had been in 1994-9 5 under the Act 34 system, but it was less than it would have been had the Act 34 system, including earmarked fimding for retiremerit and health insurance, been retained. -22- 06 / 30 / 98 14:44 '6'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS . 026 It is now time to describe the provisions of the settlement agreement that, according to the districts, were violated by these changes. Two sections of the agreement are principally at issue,2 Sections ILE and ILL. The relevant part of Section ILE reads as follows: In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: * * * .. (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funrung. Section ILL reads as follows : The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of 2NLRSD argues that the State's actions also violate Section ILF, NLRSD Br. at 1 7-18. This section reads as follows, in pertinent part: The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. This provision may actually fit the present case better than Sections II.E and II.L, which are the focus of the District Court's opinion and most of the parties' arguments. We are affinning largely on the basis of the District Court's reasoning, however, so we need not pursue the applicability of Section II.F. -23- l ., ... 06 / 30 / 98 14:45 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding fonnula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. . -~027 The District Court held, in brief, that teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding, as they existed under the former system of public school financing, were ''programs\" within the meaning of Section II.E. The funding formula for such programs, the Court said, citing our opinion in Little Rock Sch Dist. v Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), could be adjusted in a way that is generally applicable to all districts, but only if the adjustment is \"fair and rational,\" in the words of Section ILL. The changes at issue are not \"fair and rational\" in the present context because they work to the disadvantage of the three districts. The new funding scheme does not take into account the number of employees, but only ADM and the districts' wealth. The three districts are \"employee heavy,\" as we said in Little Rock Sch. Dist , supra, 83 F.3d at 1018. The changes in funding for teacher retirement and health insurance therefore violate the settlement agreement, the Court held. II. The State, acting through the Arkansas Department of Education, appeals. The Alma School District and 110 other districts from all parts of the State, also appeal, having been allowed by the District Court to .intervene for this purpose. The intervenors are apprehensive that if the three Pulaski County districts win, securing additional fimding for themselves, the State money going to the intervenor districts will be reduced. (This is not necessarily true, but we understand why the intervenors feel they have an interest to protect.) -24- 06 / 30 / 98 t4 : 46 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ll]028 .... , , AppeUants' first argument is that it was error to grant summary judgment because - there were genuine issues of material fact that needed to be tried. The first such fact, the State says, is whether funds specifically eannarked for teacher retirement and health insurance are now being distributed as part of the new system of Equalization Funding. We cannot see why this \"fact\" - if it really is a fact, instead of just a description of a legislative change in how the State distributes aid to local school districts - is important or material. The essential nature of the change is undeniable. The State used to pay separately for teacher retirement and health insurance, and it did so on a basis that necessarily took into account the number of each district's employees. Money still goes to the districts that may be used for these pUiposes, but the amount has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system, and it no longer has anything to do with numbers of employees. As the District Court phrased it, \"items like teacher retirement and health insurance, which were previously paid directly by the State, were put into one large pool.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, No. LR-C- 82-866, slip op. 9 (E.D. Ark., memorandlllil opinion and order filed Feb. 18, 1997). Whether this change is characterized as a complete abandonment of State aid for teacher retirement and health insurance, or simply as a change in the way the State - chooses to fund these programs ( a description which seems more realistic to us) is not important to the result in this case. The second fact the State claims was in genuine dispute was whether the new funding system distiibutes funds on a \"pure\" per-student, or ADM, basis. The State says the districts took that position in the District Court, whereas in fact the new . funding system is based not only on ADM but also the wealth of each individual district. In our view, it does not matter what position the districts took below. The important question is on what basis the District Court acted, and that Court clearly did not think or say that the new system was based only on ADM. \"[T]he new funding scheme,\" the Court said! \"is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district.\" Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist., No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 5 (E.D. Ark., memorandmn opinion and order filed Apr. 22, 1997) ( emphasis supplied). -25- 06 / :IU / 98 14 : 47 'tl'314 5;19 3945 !JS COIJRT APPEALS The key point is not whether the new system is based only on ADM, but that it gives no weight at all to numbers of employees. So we agree with the District Court that there were no genuine issues of material fact. That being so, was it right to enter judgment for the districts as a matter of law? We think the answer is yes. To begin with, there is no doubt that the teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding systems in effect at the time the settlement agreement was signed, in 1989, are \"programs\" within the meaning of Section Il.E. In Little Rocle Sch, llisL, ~' 83 F.3d at 1017-18, we held that the State's payment of workers' compensation costs was such a \"program,\" and we see no way to distinguish the present case, Our opinion in that case points the way towards the proper solution Ofthe present appeal. There, we had before us two distinct actions of the State: first, a decision to discontinue entirely State payments for workers' compensation for employees of school districts, and, second, the State's decision to distribute, as an interim measure, certain sums as \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs. We held that the first decision did not violate the settlement agreement, but that the second one did. Explaining this result, we said: [W]e do not believe that the State's action regarding the \"program\" necessarily violates the Settlement Agreement. The program in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement, as we see it, was equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. Thus, the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" We see this portion of the Settlement Agreement as an anti-retaliation clause. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation c01mnitments. If, for example, the -26- State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would clearly have been offended. The State did not do that, however. Rather, it changed the funding fonnula for all districts in the State. So long as that change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement. That, however, does not end our inquiry. When the State disbursed \"seed money\" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs, it paid about one-half oftheexpense statewide:- m. the -- ---- Pulaski County districts, it paid only about one-third of the expense. This disparity arose because the State's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. The Pulaski County districts are employee heavy compared to other districts, increasing their workers' compensation costs. Tiris result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached tlris result in a mathematically consistent manner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County distiicts in the same percentage as it does statewide. 83 F.3d at 1018. - H 1 : _ ;, Thus, we read Sections II.E and II.L together, in an attempt to make sense out of them as a unified whole. The State's discontinuance of payment for workers' compensation, because it was made on an even-handed basis and applicable generally to all school districts, was, in om judgment, not a violation of paragraph ll.E. Reading E and L together, we took the view that the State could discontinue a funding program -27- 06 / 30 / 98 1 4 : 48 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS if it did so in a generally applicable manner and on a fair and rational basis .3 The State's reason for changing its full, no-questions-asked funding of workers' compensation was to give the individual school districts a financial incentive to reduce workers' compensation premiums, by paying more attention to safety in the workplace, for example. nus purpose, combined with the fact that the change affected all school districts equally, convinced us that the change did not violate Section II.E. In effect, we read the last part of Section ILL, referring to \"[flair and rational adjustments to [a] ... funding fonnula which have general applicability . . . , \" as modifying not only the specific prohibitions of Section II.L, but also the provisions of Section II.E(6). . 031 With this previous opinion in mind, we agree with the District Court that theactions taken by the State in the present case closely resemble the \"seed money\" issue in the previous case. \"Seed money\" disbursed by the State covered about one-half of workers' compensation costs statewide, while paying only about one-third of this expense for the three Pulaski County districts. The new funding system for teacherretirement and health-insurance costs produces the same sort of disparity, though the exact amount of the disparity is open to debate. Because the three Pulaski County districts are \"employee heavy,\" as noted above, when compared to school districts in Arkansas generally, the State funds they are now receiving cover proportionally less of their teacher-retirement and health-insurance costs. The District Court explained the 3On the present appeal, NLRSD argues that we were wrong in so interpreting Section II .E. NLRSD brief at 22-23 . In NLRSD's view, Section ILE is a free-standing, independent requirement. The State must continue to pay its share of any and all programs in existence at the time of the settlement agreement, whatever its reasons for desiring to change them, and whatever the effect of such changes. Certainly this is one way to read the agreement, and a plausible way, at that. We did not so interpret Sections ILE and Il.L in our previous decision, however, and that decision has become the law of this case. We do not choose to reexamine it. We have power to do so, but the arguments now advanced against our prior interpretation do not seem to us sufficiently compelling to enable us to describe our prior opinion as egregiously wrong or unjust, and some such description would be necessary to avoid the law-of-the-case doctrine. -28- 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 49 '6'3 14 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS 032 matter in tenns we find persuasive. We quote from the Court's order on teacher - retirement, but the language applies equally to health insurance: The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation \"seed money\" fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County school districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding fonnula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. There is a difference between the State's decision not to fund workers' compensation and to end direct state funding of teacher retirement. The rationale concerning workers' compensation was that the shift of responsibility to the school districts would prompt them to take measures to reduce their workers' compensation costs. Although the State argues the same rationale applies concerning teacher retirement, there are factors, including desegregation obligations, beyond the control of school districts which dictate the number of employees and salaries of teachers. For example, the LRSD desegregation plan obligates the district to implement a four-year-old program, to staff incentive schools with instructional aides, theme specialists, computer aides, art teachers; physical education teachers, social workers, counselors, auxiliary teachers, media specialists, and supervision aides, among many others. The -29- 06 / 30/ 98 14 : 50 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS magnet and interdistrict schools require additional staff such as theme and curriculum specialists. In the PCSSD, numerous positions are required to fulfill desegregation plan obligations, such as home school counselors, curriculum coordinators, theme specialists, and staffing for its desegregation division, such as an assistant superintendent and director of desegregation. Likewise, the NLRSD incurs expenditures as a direct result of the requirements of the desegregation plan, such as an assistant superintendent for desegregation, reading tutors and support personnel, HIPPY staffing and support, computer technicians, junior and senior high remedial reading, and homebound teachers. Thus, it is clear that the districts are not in a position to control their teacher retirement costs in the sense that the districts might control workers' compensation costs. ~033 Little Rock Sch. Dist. SJJPia, slip op. at 9-11 (memorandum opinion and order filed February 18, 1997) (footnote omitted). For these reasons, we agree with the District Court that the changes in state funding at issue in this case did violate the settlement agreement. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Court's interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a fonnal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. The orders granting summary judgment on the teacher-retirement and health-insurance issues will be affinned. On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The tluee Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding -30- for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. Tilis means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system -- MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance -- would have produced, and what the new system -- Equalization Funding in one Jump sum -- is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation . . Admittedly it cannot be .. exact, but we believe that the District, .. . . . .. Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. The orders appealed from are affirmed, and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHIB CIRCUIT. -31- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * F1LE6 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL O 9 1998 JAMES r M~c ORMACK, CLERK By: \\ .. _ u /\\ M o [\\ .- OEP CLERK\u003c- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * 1 3 1998 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * ,JI II Intervenors, * OfFICErn: * DESEGREGATION MOKITORlNG KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for the approval of the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1).1 The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter from the Magnet Review Committee dated June 20, 1998. The proposed budget includes the second year of funding for the five-year proposed program improvement plan for the six original magnet schools. The total amount budgeted, $18, 159, 205, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $4,654 per student, calculated from an actual third-quarter enrollment of 3,901.89 students. The budget shows an increase of $84.00 per student over the 1996-97 budget, with the second year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. 2 1 Attached hereto as Exhibit L 2 The Magnet Review Committee acknowledged in its letter to this Court that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had before it an appeal regardi~g teacher retirement and health insurance which may The Court hereby approves the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cfA-day of July 1998. =Mk UDS'f ATES DISTRI TDGE fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CC,MPLIANCE WM RULE 58 AND/OR 79(~ FRCP ON 1ll0~ BY r_;r:_ ___ impact the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). The Eighth Circuit has now decided the case regarding teacher retirement and health insurance, and this Court anticipates making additional rulings regarding those issues in the future based upon the Eighth Circuit's decision. The Court expects; as the Magnet Review Committee has stated, that any revisions to the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1) required to be made in light of these decisions will be submitted to this Court for approval. 2 ~f15~:~~g;;;faJe'i~~~~~1il~il::~:::t;:::fr::,: 96-97  F.T.E.- .. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 03 Specialists 39.2 04 Counselors 12.4 05 Media Spec. 6.5 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 1.0 07 Music 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 09 Vocational 12.6 10 Special Education 8.2 11 Gifted 5.4 12 Classroom 177.9 13 Substitutes 0.0 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 293.2 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.0 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 17 Custodians 29.0 18 Information Services 0.0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 20 Other-Aides 37.0 21 Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 TOTAL ( 10-20) PURCHASED 22 Utilities SERVICES 23 Travel (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL /40) CAPITAL 30 Eouipment OUTLAY 31 Buildino Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) 390.6 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ,_,.:.'::..:\\,%:\u003c'.: GRAN0';TOTAL'.f ,':\u003c\":'\"'''' . XXX\u003eOtX  96-97 96-97 Budget Actual $369,070 $369,069 $463,584 $463,585 $1 ,327,018 $1 ,362,980 $476,963 S476,836 S248,736 $248,693 $23.723 $23,723 $0 so $0 so $347,888 $378,577 $264,005 $265,751 $197,633 $197 .633 $5,877 ,608 $5,843,911 $154,990 $166,607 $486.252 $486,572 $10,237,470 $10,283,936 $373,625 $373,570 $163,071 $163,569 $369,006 $365,788 $0 so $156,854 $130,143 $312,743 $317 ,095 $3,115,089 $3,080,923 $4 ,490,388 $4,431,089 $14,727,858 $14,715,D24 $591 ,944 $574,528 $33,600 $13,472 $8,750 so $82,878 $123,953 $717,172 $711,953 $3.600 so $425,485 $450,479 $41 ,523 $35,436 $28,771 $20,114 $499,379 $506,030 $376,785 $316,694 $5,500 $0 $350 $106 $382,635 $316,800 $27,402 $30,648 $0 $0 $27,402 $30,648 $1 ,626,587 $1 ,565,431 $16,354,446 $16,280,455 $890,896 $929,702  $17,245,342 $17,210,157 97-98 F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 39.2 12 4 6 5 1 0 00 00 12 6 8.7 5.4 177.9 0.0 13 0 292 7 20 0 5.4 29 0 1.0 60 37.0 XXXlOOOO( 98.4 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx.x XXXlOOOO( xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 391 .1 xxxxxxxx \u003eOtXXXX Exhibit 1 97-98 Prooosed $376.587 $488,462 $1 ,343 .119 $505.887 S253.085 S26 ,065 so so S343.81 7 S289, 709 $199.275 $6.147,115 $165.000 S425, 964 $10,564 .086 S407. 495 S163,262 S356,470 S22 .415 $133.806 $285,101 $3,090,046 $4 .458,595 $15,022,681 S617 ,80.3 S27 .000 so S 156.919 $801.722 S2 .500 S5 74 ,289 $35 .450 $17 .632 $629,871 $281 .692 so so $281 ,692 $11 ,213 $0 $11 .213 $1,724 ,498 $16,747 ,179 $1 ,412,026 $18,159,205 I I I I I I I I I Line lteni Costs  Budget Actual Proposed ...... . .. .. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 ;  Stipends $69.094 $19,983 S33,837 Other Objects $0 $0 so Indirect Costs $736,303 $824,092 $1 ,284 .189 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $32,000 $31 ,964 S40.500 Gifted Programs $500 $502 S500 Plant Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 S500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1,500 $1 ,660 $1 .500 Special Education $4,000 $4 ,000 $4 ,000 $0 $0 so xx:xxxx $0 $0 $0 xx:xxxx $0 $0 so Total Line Items $890,896 $929,702 S 1,412,026  ,/:_' 1996-97 . _: . 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,765.61 3.765 61 3,901 89 Total Costs $17,245,342 $17,210,157 $18,159,205 $4;580 $4,570 $4,654 1~7,:-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Booker Ma,i:i'net School ... F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $59,663 $59,663 1 0 561 ,582 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $40.672 $40,672 1 0 S4 3. 757 03 Specialists 7.0 $261 ,827 $262.257 7 0 S268.408 04 Counselors 2.0 $73,553 $73,468 2.0 S76, 155 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $41 ,963 $41 ,963 1 0 S42 ,653 06 Art-Per1./Prod. 1.0 $23. 723 $23,723 1 0 S26,065 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $50,243 $50,243 1 3 $55,624 11 Gifted 1.0 $38,946 $38,946 1.0 $39,594 12 Classroom 30.2 $998,938 $1,001,579 30 2 S1 042,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 $47. 118 00 $30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $126,243 $126.243 4.0 S 105. 300 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49.5 $1 ,7 35,772 $1,765.876 49 5 $1,791 ,516 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $34,706 $35,046 20 $39,821 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31 ,825 $32,145 1 0 $33.050 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,019 $54 ,958 4 0 $53 ,033 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 0.2 $3,736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $59,679 $60,277 7.0 $56,973 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $520,352 $520,341 S519,779 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.0 $701 ,580 $702:767 14.2 S706 ,392 TOTAL (10-20)   ;,_., .. $2,437,352 $2,468,642 $2,497,909 PURCHASED 22 Utilities , , .   $78,070 $66,703 $81 ,480 SERVICES 23 Travel   ... ,   $5,000 $2,355 $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,493 $12,711 S13,350 TOTAL (30) $91 ,563 $81, 769 S96,830 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $42,079 $40,397 S105.498 (40) 28 Media $6,150 $6,105 SS.250 29 Other $4 ,205 $3,475 $3 ,372 TOTAL (40) $52.434 $49,977 $114 ,120 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $60,059 $50,840 $65. 760 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. - $2,500 so - so (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $62,559 $50,840 S65. 760 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $259 $259 S250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $259 $259 S250 TOTAL (30-60) $206,816 $182.845 xxxxxxxx S276. 960 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,644,167 $2,651,488 63. 7 S2.774 .869 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $145,777 $138,793 x:x:xxxxx,. S217,370 i\\:,u:;.,:;-:.GRAND .. TOTAlr :-.: XXXXXX' .. ... ,,, $2,789,944 $2,790,280 xxxxxx $2 ,992,238 Line Item Costs  Budget Actual Proposed Booker ' 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends S20, 733 S3. 789 S8.357 Other Objects Indirect Costs S121 ,381 S131 .479 $205,499 Vocational $0 $0 so Athletics $0 so so Gifted Programs $155 $149 $15 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1682","title":"Court filings concerning ODM report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrations in the Central Office of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', ODM budget for 1997-98 and 1998-99, motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue, and the process for assessing the equitable allocation of district resources","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1998-06"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","School administrators","Education, Secondary"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ODM report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrations in the Central Office of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', ODM budget for 1997-98 and 1998-99, motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue, and the process for assessing the equitable allocation of district resources"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1682"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Racial Composition of the Certified Staff in the Secondary Schools and the Administrations in the Central Office of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, order; District Court, Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget for 1997-98 and 1998-99; District Court, notice of process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for summary judgment as to the Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for summary judgment as to the Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) statement of material and undisputed facts; District Court, affidavit of Donald Stewart; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education project management tool; District Court, objection to proposed Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget and motion for enlargement of time; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) objection to proposed Office of Desegregation Monitoring budget and motion for enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN O 31998 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK  B RACIAL COMPOSIDON OF~ DEP. CLERK CERTIFIED STAFF IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND THE ADMINISTRATORS IN THE CENTRAL OFFICE OF THE Ann S.Brown -., Federal Monitor PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT June 3, 1998 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor a-,~- , FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl\u003cANSAS IN THE UNITED STATESTIISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ,JUN O 8 1998 JAMES r McCQRMACK, CLERK By: \\_ ' ~ \\,L ) y'--1...::::-.. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 OEP CLER!( '--. RECEIVED JUN 9 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NB The Court has received the proposed 1998-99 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. See attached letter and budget document. The parties may file any objections to the proposed budget within fifteen (15) calendar days from the entry of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ,f ji'aay of June 1998. ~ n:~~$ UNITED ST ATES DISTRIC JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITtl-,RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON ~/S/2~ ~-~~---- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas - ------'----- ---- - Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor June 4, 1998 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas  Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 The ODM budget for two years, 1997-98 and 1998-99, is attached for the parties' review and your approval. Although the budget is for two years, its format follows that of previous years, including annotation to explain revenue calculations; budget category definitions; budgeted and actual expenses by category for 1996-97; budgeted and estimated expenditures by category for 1997-98; and budgeted expenditures by category for 1998-99. Note that the 1997-98 budget is slightly less than that of the previous year, and that the 1998-99 budget is only a 2. 9% increase over that of each of the previous two years. Salary increases for ODM staff are 3.29% per year, which is the prevailing annual experience step increase on the three local districts' salary scales. Again, I have chosen not to accept an increase in salary. We have contained our expenditures such that they are below the projected annual budgets. As is our practice, we credit that difference proportionately to each of the school districts according to their pro-rated contributions to our annual budgets. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 1997-98 AND 1998-99 BUDGETS I REVENUE 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 1997-98 1998-99 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET State of Arkansas 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 LRSD 223,889.00 223,889.00 206,811 .00 206,811 .00 218,671 .00 Credit (see note below) 19,197.00 19,197.00 37,265.00 37,265.00 35,083.00 NLRSD 80,121.00 80,121 .00 74,917.00 74,917.00 80,765.00 Credit (see note below) 6,870.00 6,870.130 13,500.00 13,500.00 12,958.00 PCSSD 184,831.00 184,831 .00 167,958.00 167,958.00 175,935.00 Credit (see note below) 15,848.00 15,848.00 30,265.00 30,265.00 28,227.00 Interest 6,404.29 6,400.00 \"'' c: ::{\" '2 '' {: ;;;::: ::,,,=: :{?: t :::::JidijffiiboJH:: :t:'i~trni ;i ::t:lliij;lti:ltl I:i::: :i;:: :~atliii!rio :: 1::1.~l[~IJ1ti l Note: Evel'f budget cycle, ODM credits each district a pro rata proportion of the 411spent amount of the previous year's budget. We apply this amount toward the current budget allocation. See annotated budget. EXPENDITURES 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 1997-98 1998-9~1 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGE - Communications 7,870.00 8,433.41 8,500.00 9,172.00 9,180.00 Dues and Fees 3,300.00 3,785.00 3,800.00 3,210.00 3,300.00 Equipment 14,1 59.00 14,143.75 785.00 780.00 6,339.00 Food Services 250.00 129.00 200.00 149.00 200.00 Management Services 3,000.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 Periodicals 500.00 350.91 400.00 390.00 400.00 Printinq and Bindinq 6,000.00 5,449.33 6,000.00 4,689.00 6,000.00 Prof. and Tech. Services 28,497.00 2,861 .25 26,497.00 1,308.00 26,497.00 Rent 48,417.00 48,417.00 49,883.00 49,883.00 50,917.00 Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 897.59 1,500.00 460.00 1,500.00 Resource Library 500.00 579.26 500.00 115.00 500.00 Salaries 468,904.00 450,464.40 481 ,145.00 455,145.00 492,614.00 Benefits 120,109.00 96,948.15 122,436.00 114,285.00 125,122.00 Staff Development 1,000.00 996.50 1,000 00 1,243.00 1,000.00 Suoolies 7,750.00 7,481 .16 7,750.00 7,634.00 7,750.00 Travel 19,000.00 14,373.96 18,000.00 11 ,565.00 18,000.00 Insurance 820.00 820.00 820.00 820.00 - :;.:,:,:::.:::::;:,::::'.::::::-::: ,:,:::::=::::::::::::::::::: ;.:,=::,:::::::;::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::c:::=: ::::::t~dltl:!a::: t::ii~IB~I\\I : ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 1997-98 AND 1998-99 'REVENUE - The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis ... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: .. . [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ... 1997-98 Budget: 10/1/97 'It of Total 1997-98 Budget 1996-97 Credit (Budget 1997-98 Budget Enrollment Enrollment Allocation  not spent) Pavment LRSD 24,985 45.99 244,076.00 37,265.00 206 811.00 NLRSD 9,053 16.66 88,417.00 13,500.00 74,917.00 PCSSD 20,295 37.35 198,223.00 30,265.00 167,958.00 State of AR 200,000.00 200 000.00 Total 54,333 100.00 730,716.00 81 ,030.00 649,686.00 1998-99 Budget 10/1/98 'lo of Total 1998-99 Budget 1997-98 Estimated Credit 1998-99 Estimated Enrollment Enrollment Allocation IBudoet not soentl Budoet Pavment LRSD 24,886 46.00 253,754.00 35,083.00 218,671 .00 NLRSD 9,192 16.99 93,723.00 12,958.00 80 765.00 PCSSD 20,024 37.01 204,162.00 28,227.00 175,935.00 State of AR 200,000.00 200,000.00 Total 54,102 100.00 751 ,639.00 76,268.00 675,371 .00 Note: Because the 1998-99 budget is being filed before the current year expenditures are finalized, the 1997-98 credit and the 1998-99 budget payment are estimated. After the close of the 1997-98 year, we will notify each district of the exact amount due for their share of ODM's 1998-99 budget, incorporating each district's exact credt Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the charts above, that we used to determine each district 's contribution to ODM's budgets: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October l enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share (or estimated share) of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM' s budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified at the close of the current fiscal year of the exact amount due for their share of ODM' s budget. Page 2 EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. The estimated expenditures for 1997-98 are based on eleven months of actual expenditures. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. _ 1996-97 Budget 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Expenditures Amount 7,870.00 8,433.41 8,500.00 1997-98 Estimated Excenditures 9,172.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 9,180.00 Expenditures that exceeded the 1997-98 budget were due to adding a phone line for Internet communications and upgrading to an electronic postage meter, as required by the U.S. Postal Service. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 1996-97 Budaet 3,300.00 1996-97 Exoenditures 3.785.00 1997-98 Budgeted Amount 3.800.00 1997-98 Estimated Exoenditures 3,210.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 3.300.00 Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 1996-97 Budqet 14,159.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Expenditures Amount 14,143.75 785.00 1997-98 Estimated Expenditures 780.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 6.339.00 To store the voluminous records that have accumulated in the desegregation_ case and ODM operations, we will use CD's to preserve and catalog them. Therefore, we will purchase a high volume scanner and two new computers, one with a CD read-and-write drive, and the appropriate software. We also plan to replace our aging fax machine with a plain paper fax. Page 3 Food Services: Expenditures for food or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budgeted Budaet Expenditures Amount Expenditures Amount 250.00 129.00 200.00 149.00 200.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 1996-97 Bud et 3,000.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Ex enditures Amount 0.00 1,500.00 1997-98 Estimated Ex nditures 0.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 1,500.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals of less than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 1996-97 Bud et 500.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Ex enditures Amount 350.91 400.00 1997-98 Estimated Ex enditures 390.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 400.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 1996-97 Bud et 6,000.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Ex enditures Amount 5 449.33 6,000.00 1997-98 Estimated Ex enditures 4,689.00 1998-99 Budgeted Amount 6,000.00 Note: We are able to maintain the cost of this budget item because of in-house printing. Page 4 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budgeted Budget Expendrtures Amount Expenditures Amount 468,904.00 450,464.40 481 ,145.00 455,145.00 492.614.00 Most of the salary changes between 1996-97 and 1997-98 and _between 1997-98 and 1998-99 reflect a 3.29% increase, which is comparable to the annual step increase in the three Pulaski County school districts. Exceptions are noted below. Salaries: Name of Employee 1998-87 Salary 1997-88 Salary 1998-89 Salary Ann Brown 1 104,164.00  104,164.00 104,164.00 Melissa Guldin 2 45,490.00 46,987.00 48,533.00 Gene Jones 3 47,815.00 49,312.00 50,858.00 Norman Marshall 56,863.00 58,734.00 60,666.00 Marqie Powell 56,863.00 58,734.00 60,666.00 Horace Smith 56,863.00 58,734.00 60,666.00 Research Associate4 26,000.00 26,000.00 26,000.00 Polly Ramer 42,683.00 44,087.00 45,537.00 Linda Bryant 23,669.00 24,448.00 25,252.00 Jackie Banks 5 8,494.00 9,945.00 10,272.00 Total 468,904.00 481 ,145.00 492,614.00 1 Ann Brown declined to accept a salary increase for both 1997-98 and 1998-99. 2Melissa Guldin works 4/5 time. 3Gene Jones works 4/5 time. Gene elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits and his salary reflects that decision. 4Position not filled. 5The job responsibilities for Jackie Banks, who works 3/5 time, increased during 1997-98; her salary reflects those additional responsibilities. Page 6 Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budgeted Budaet Excenditures Amount Excenditures Amount 120.109.00 96,948.15 122,436.00 114,285.00 125,122.00 Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's 1997-98 budgeted fringe benefits: - Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment ization Ins. lndemnitv Tenn Benefits Brown 1,800.00 5,777.28 12,715.68 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 22,617.60 Guldin 1,200.00 3,686.31 5,782.44 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 12,993.39 Jones 960.00 3,845.81 6,032.64 10,838.45 Marshall 1,200.00 4,584.95 7,048.08 1968.00 . 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,157.67 Powell 1,200.00 4,584.95 7,048.08 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,157.67 Smith 1,200.00 4,584.95 7,048.08 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,157.67 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 8,151 .54 Ramer 3,372.66 5,290.44 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 10,98T74 Brvant 1,870.27 2,933.76 1968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 7,112.11 Banks 760.79 1.193.40 1968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 4,262.27 Total 8,160.00 35,102.87 58,284.60 17,712.00 364.32 1,697.76 548.64 565.92 122.436.11 Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's 1998-99 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Securitv ment ization Ins. lndemnitv Tenn Benefl1s Brown 1,800.00 5.777.28 12,715.68 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 22,617.60 Guldin 1,200.00 3,804.58 5,967.96 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 13,297.18 Jones 960.00 3,964.08 6.218.16 11 ,142.24 Marshall 1,200.00 4,732.75 7,423.92 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,681 .31 Powell 1,200.00 4,732.75 7,423.92 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,681 .31 Smith 1,200.00 4,732.75 7,423.92 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 15,681 .31 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 8,151 .54 Ramer 3,483.58 5,464.44 1968.00 44.16 188.64 60.96 62.88 11 ,272.66 Brvant 1,931.77 3,030.24 1968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 7,270.09 Banks 785.80 1,232.64 1968.00 27.60 188.64 60.96 62.88 4,326.52 Total 8,160.00 35.980.24 60,092.88 17 712.00 364.32 1,697.76 548.64 565.92 125,121 .76 Page 7 . ' ' .. Staff Development: Services performed by persons ,qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budgeted Budqet Expend~ures Amount Expenditures Amount 1,000.00 996.50 1,000.00 1,243.00 1,000.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-98 Budgeted BudQet Expenditures Amount Expend~ures Amount 7,750.00 7,481 .16 7,750.00 7,634.00 7,750.00 Travel: Expenditure for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence ( room and board) also are charged here. 1996-97 Bud et 19,000.00 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted Ex end~ures Amount 14,373.96 18,000.00 1997-98 Estimated Ex end~ures 11 ,565.00 1997-98 Budgeted Amount 18,000.00 Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Budgeted 1997-98 Estimated 1998-99 Budget BudQet Expenditures/ Amount Expenditures Amount 820.00 820 .. 00 820.00 820.00 On our auditor's recommendation, we purchased insurance on the furnishings and equipment in our office. Page 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF PROCESS FOR ASSESSING THE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES RECEIVED JUN 9 199B OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Notice of Process for Assessing the Equitable Allocation of Resources states: 1. Section 2.9.1 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 (\"Revised Plan\") provides: Within sixty (60) days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2. In compliance with Section 2.9.1, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, has developed a process for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. LRSD, working with Joshua and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), shall: (a) Identify the resources the District will assess for equitable allocation; f:-~.001 (b) Develop a standard or standards for assessing the extent to which those resources are being distributed on an equitable basis; (c) Assess the allocation of resources based on the standard or standards developed; and, (d) Report the results of the assessment to ODM and Joshua. 3. This process will be completed on a timeline consistent with the issuance of a final report within 180 days of this Court's approval of the Revised Plan as pr?vided in Section 2.9.2 of the Revised Plan. 4. In the above process, LRSD shall consult with the one or both of the desegregation experts retained by LRSD in compliance with Section 2 . 1. 1 of the Revised Plan . Joshua has approved LRSD I s - retention of Terrance Roberts, one of the original \"Little Rock Nine,\" and Steven Ross, a professor at the University of Memphis, to assist LRSD in development of the programs, policies and procedures required by the Revised Plan. r:lhomolfendlcyllnd\\des-pld.001 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2 Christopher Hell John C. Fendley, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 9th day of June, 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 . Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hell John c. Fendley, 3 RECEIVED JUN I 6 1998 - OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER F!LJ2D U.S. OISTI I;cr COURT EASTi:RN 0IS1 .I.ICT ARKANSAS ,JUN 151998 JAt1ES W] Mc!MACK, CLERK 8y: '\\r , ~ \\t /\\ QC:, Qr-._ DEP C!.E~t - ' By previous Order entered on June 8, 1998, this Court indicated that it had received the proposed 1998-99 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and directed the parties to file any objections\u003e the proposed budget within fifteen (15) calendar days from the entry of the Court's Order. That Order should have indicated that this Court received the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's proposed budget for the years 1998-2000. The parties have to and including June 23, 1998 in which to file any objections to the proposed budget. ....,--(l\\_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /5 day of June 1998. fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN .:;QMPUANCE WiTHJtULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP :\u003eN (zl(s-/'l K' BY ~..- - ---- 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE LRSD PCSSD for its motion states: JUN 2 2 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Pursuant to the pooling agreement and previous orders of this Court, the LRSD owes the PCSSD interest of $96,899.62 calculated at six (6) percent. 2. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court and the Court of Appeals, LRSD owes the PCSSD $1,324,063.28 pursuant to the pooling agreement including the last two school years. After deducting the pooling sums owed the LRSD, the net sum due PCSSD is $1,291,103.52. 3. Appended to this motion as Exhibit \"A\" is the worksheet utilized by Dr. Stewart to calculate the interest and depicting the pooling funds owed the PCSSD. The pooling calculations were performed precisely as they have been performed in the past. 4. Requests and demands made to the LRSD to pay over these sums have proven unsuccessful. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing the LRSD to immediately pay over the sums set forth above. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ~ , -- ~ ~ M. Sal')1 el nes 111 \"('Z-6060) Attor,neys fo Pula\u0026 County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June /1 , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 nes, Ill 2 ----- 06/18191 INTEREST COMPUTATION ON M-to-M POOLING FUNDS 08/18198 PRE ORDER INTEREST  LRSO - . -  . . BEG. DATE ENO DATE DUE TO INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL ouE ORO.QATE LRSO RATE EARNED P\u0026I - .. 01/15192 0?/3Q~ 1.116 47!5.83 .. . .. POST O. RDER INTERE~.T  LRSO - ... --. 07/31/96 ~L30/98 $116 47!5.83 6.00% S13 -383.55  . TOTALS .. $118 47!5.83 $13,383.55 $1~,859.38 PRE ORDE.. R INTERES'.f'_ PCSSO  -- . -- .  BEG. DATE ENO DATE CUETO INTEREST INTEREST TOTAL QUE ORD. DATE PCSSD ... RATE EARNED .. . Pll . . --- -- 01/15193 0713019G $150,-472.~~  -- - ... 01/15194 07/30/96 $103,378.01 01/15/96 07/30/96 $207.920.13 .. ... . . 01/16/96 07/30/96 .. -~72,4Q4.11 -  BAL. or:,, 07/30/96 s73:4~.40 $0.00    . POST .O. R... O~R INTEREST - PCSSO -- 01/15/97 07/29/97 $436,200.10 6.00% $13,982.30 -- 07/31/96 . . 07/29/97 $73',26'.40 ... 8.00% $43,81.C.~ .... - PAIi;) . 07/29(97 1$34!52M.~ .. IS19 951.65 :-=-\u003e-. BALQ.N 07/29/97 S82!5170.(M s.,7 8'!.12 l~_TEREST EARNED AmR PAV ON 07/29197 - - 07/30/97 06/30/98 $825,170.04 6.1~% $,45, 4-40.87 - -  . 01/15198 .. . 06/30/98 $498.893.2-4 . 8.00% S13,613... 63 . TOTA L OUE PCSS[ ... $1 324.063.28 S96 8i9.62 $1 .420.962.90 NET DUE PCS$0 06/30/98 $1.291.103.52 -  .  - . EXHIBIT I A '--- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 2 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR!~~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE LRSD In affirming this Court's last pooling order, the Court of Appeals noted: \"The district court's interpretation of paragraph \"O\" is an acceptable one: it is just, it will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools, and it will provide a financial incentive to both districts to receive M-to-M transfer students. 109 F.3d 514 at 516.\" In affirming this Court's order for essentially the reasons stated in this Court's last opinion, the Court of Appeals quoted the finding of this Court that: [F]or each school year, the amount of LRSD's and PCSSD's financial contribution to the pool is calculated in accordance with Paragraph O of the Settlement Agreement. [There is no dispute as to the methodology for calculating these amounts.] The total amount of funds in the pool for a given year is then divided by the total number of M-to-M students in the interdistrict schools in both districts to arrive at an equalized, per-student dollar amount for educating them in the interdistrict schools. For each school district, the equalized per-student dollar amount is then multiplied by the number of M-to-M stude11ts hosted by that district in its interdistrict schools to determine the amount of the pooled funds to which each district is entitled. ' Id. at 515-516. The PCSSD has calculated its entitlement in accordance with the foregoing language. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By__t,~~~::s,_~~=-------, I (76060) ski County Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June I~ . 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVE.~ JUN 2 2 1998 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD STATEMENT OF MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS 1. The worksheet appended to the motion as Exhibit \"A\" accurately calculates the post-order interest due the PCSSD. 2. Exhibit \"A\" accurately calculates the pooling sums due the PCSSD from the LRSD including the last two school years. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 B-~A~~::::s._...::::;,.4-1--___ _ Special School CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June /'7 , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown QOM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ones, Ill u 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF DR. DONALD STEWART PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Don Stewart and I have testified on numerous occasions in this case. Attached to the motion for summary judgment as Exhibit \"A\" is a worksheet that I prepared. The worksheet was prepared in accordance with the methodology I have consistently applied regarding the pooling issue and was done pursuant to the methodology described by this Court in its order July 29, 1997. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this 19th day of June. 1998. My Commission Expires: ~ ~c ~o )--. :1-~ Notary Public =t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June /f , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown QOM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL 1 1998 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG PLAINTIFF . v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for June, 1998. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General eyGeneral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 .Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education RECEIVED JUN 21./ 1998 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORltJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OBJECTION TO PROPOSED ODM BUDGET AND MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME fJNIMO!INOW NOl1V93HS3S30 ~o 3a1:1:10 866i  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1701","title":"Court filings concerning ADE's July 1998 semiannual monitoring report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ADE's July 1998 semiannual monitoring report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1701"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitoring report; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitorinig report; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAY 6 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONffORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO .. 1, et al. ADE'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ITS DEFENDANTS OBLIGATION TO FILE ITS JULY, 1998 SEMIANNUAL MONITORING REPORT The Arkansas Department of Education hereby moves the Court for an order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July 1, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report so that ADE can concentrate its resources toward developing proposed modifications of its monitoring and reporting obligations. The motion is made on the following grounds: I. ADE believes that its monitoring and reporting obligations, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the \"Allen Letter,\" ADE' s Implementation Plan, and this Court's orders, can and should be modified so as to better assist the parties in their efforts to comply with their desegregation obligations and provide quality education in the public schools in Pulaski County. 2. With the approval of the State Board of Education, ADE is committed to working with the Districts, the Joshua and Knight Intervenors, and ODM to develop proposed modifications of ADE' s monitoring and reporting obligations that can be presented to this Court later this year for the Court's approval. 1 - 3. Over the next two months ADE personnel will be expending a substantial amount of time producing, reviewing, and finalizing ADE's July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. ADE believes that the time, energy and other resources that would be expended to complete the July report can be more productively directed toward working with the parties and ODM to develop proposed modifications to ADE' s current monitoring and reporting responsibilities. 4. Should this motion be granted, ADE will keep the Court apprised of its activities and progress toward developing proposed modifications via ADE' s Project Management Tools, which are currently filed by ADE on the last business day of each month. 5. ADE is authorized to state that PCSSD and NLRSD do not object to the relief sought in this motion. Counsel for LRSD, Joshua and Knight were contacted concerning this motion but have not, as of the time this motion is sent for filing, indicated whether they would object to the relief ADE seeks. WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court enter an order relieving ADE of its obligation to file the July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. 2 Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant A ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on May 5, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Plaza 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 3 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 6 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONrrORING LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ADE'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ITS DEFENDANTS OBLIGATION TO FILE ITS JULY, 1998 SEMIANNUAL MONITORING REPORT Both this Court and the Eighth Circuit have approved modifications to the parties' obligations under the Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans when changed circumstances and conditions have so warranted. See, e.g., Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1998) (approving LRSD's closure of Ish incentive school); see also this Court's order entered April 10, 1998 (approving, in the alternative, LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan as a modification of LRSD's 1990 plan). However, this Court has made it clear that any modifications of the parties' desegregation obligations must be first developed by the parties and then submitted to this Court for approval. ADE believes that its current monitoring and reporting obligations, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the so-called \"Allen Letter,\"1 ADE' s Implementation Plan, 1 In this motion, the \"Allen Letter\" refers to a letter to the parties (copied to Judge Woods) dated May 31, 1989, from William Allen (then outside counsel for the State Board of Education), which included a plan for monitoring . 1 and the orders of this Court, can and should be modified. Oearly, circumstances and conditions in this case have changed materially since mid-1989. The Allen Letter was drafted nearly nine years ago, and even then it was contemplated that the monitoring plan would need to be modified in the future as circumstances changed.2 Further, among other things, since 1989 the Districts have been released from this Court's supervision over some aspects of their desegregation plans, this Court recently approved LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, PCSSD's motion for \"unitary status\" is pending before this Court, and many of ADE's specific funding obligations to the Districts have either been completed or are in their final stages.3 The Eighth Circuit \"stated early on that the passage of time would necessitate modifications in the desegregation plans.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, supra, 56 F.3d at 914 (citing Appeal of Little - Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 254 (8th Cir. 1991). In December of 1996 this Court granted LRSD' s motion for a \"plan development period\" to enable the LRSD to devote more of its resources toward working with the parties to develop proposed modifications to its desegregation plan. As a result, LRSD compensatory education programs in the Districts. In its order dated December IO, 1993, this Court found that the \"Allen Letter'' set forth ADE's monitoring obligations under the Settlement Agreement. 2 In the Allen Letter, which was drafted and submitted far in advance of the Eighth Circuit's opinion approving the Settlement Agreement, vacating the order establishing the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor, and ordering the establishment of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, Mr. Allen noted that ADE \"anticipate[d] that the . . . plan may be modified after receiving [the parties'] comments and after [ADE] learn[ ed] more about the monitoring role that will be undertaken by [the Metropolitan Supervisor].\" 3 For example, compensatory education payments to LRSD under VI.A.(l) of the Settlement will end in January ofnext year; payments in lieu of formula guarantees to LRSD under Vl.A.(2) ended in July of 1995; payments to PCSSD under VIl.2.(a) and (b) of the Settlement ended in July of 1994 and 1995, respectively; and compensatory education payments to NLRSD under VIII.B. and C. of the Settlement ended at the close of the 1996-97 school year. 2 was able to work with the parties to successfully produce a revised plan that this Court approved last month. ADE, with the approval of the State Board of Education, is committed to working with all parties to this case to develop proposed modifications to its monitoring and reporting obligations that can be presented to this Court for approval later this year. However, during the next two months ADE will be expending a substantial amount of time and resources to produce, review, and finalize the July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. ADE believes that it and the parties to this case would benefit from a \"hiatus\" on the production of the July, 1998 report (analogous to LRSD' s \"plan development period\") during which the time, energy and other resources that would be expended to complete the July report could be more productively directed toward working with the parties and ODM to develop proposed modifications to ADE' s current monitoring and reporting responsibilities. Accordingly, ADE respectfully requests that the Court relieve it of its obligation to serve and file the July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. 3 By: Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMO . G G R #95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on May 5, 1998, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M.SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Oark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon\u0026Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 --z:-~ Tim.0th Gau er 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MAY l 2 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO ADE'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ITS OBLIGATION TO FILE ITS JULY, 1998 SEMIANNUAL MONITORING REPORT For its response, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) - states that it has no objection to ADE's motion. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Byb~~~~~~-;t;,.~~c._- r1.stopher Helle Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Little Rock School District's Response to ADE's Motion For Relief From Its Obligation to File Its July, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United states mail on this 8th day of May, 1998. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones . WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS  2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 General 2 RECEIVED MAY 1 9 1998 OFFlCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is the Arkansas Department of Education's (\"ADE\") motion requesting relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitoring report. The ADE states in its motion that its monitoring and reporting obligations, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the\" Allen Letter,\" the ADE's Implementation Plan, and this Court's Orders, can and should be modified so as to better assist the parties in their efforts to comply with their desegregation obligations and provide quality education in the public schools in Pulaski County. If this Court should grant the ADE relief from its obligation to file its July 1998 semiannual monitoring report, the ADE, with approval of the State Board of Education, has committed to working with the Districts, the Joshua and Knight Intervenors, and the Office of Desegregation Mopitoring (\"ODM\") to develop p~oposed modifications to the ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The ADE suggests that the proposed modifications then be presented to this Court later this year for the Court's approval. The ADE has stated that it will keep this 1 5 5 Court apprised of its activities and its progress towards developing the proposed modifications via the ADE's Project Management Tools, which are currently filed by the ADE on the last business day of each month. This Court grants the ADE's motion relieving the ADE of its obligation to file a July 1, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. During the time period in which the ADE would be preparing its July 1 Report, the ADE shall work with the Districts, the Joshua and Knight Intervenors, and the ODM to develop proposed modifications to the ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The ADE should keep this Court apprised of its activities and progress regarding the proposed modifications via the ADE's Project Management Tools. 11\\_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS / g' day of May 1998. / fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ~OM~CE,T'fULE58AND/?~~FRCP ,N t g_ 71 BY _ _j/L~.~------' ' 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE' s Project Management Tool for May, 1998. Li=dc:l ; n I ;b.,..~\"1 Abt : fy-~1cd ~en\"~\"\"}. t.octl \".ftbo .. f-() Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JI_;,\\) 1 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIFlfifGREGATION MONITOR/MS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2.  Actual as of May 30, 1998 ~~t~~~iRa~~~,~~l~~i; i~~~~~t.~Ngl~1iaif lt.a~~tl~uff.~f.B~r.cur~te.:~a0e. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1679","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD's March 24 plan, ADE project management tool, and ODM ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'' report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-04"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School facilities","School buildings","Education, Secondary","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD's March 24 plan, ADE project management tool, and ODM ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'' report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1679"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["48 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, joint motion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Joshua for approval of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) March 24 plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Joshua for approval of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) plan; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Secondary School Facilities in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.   t' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LRC-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MQJIQN EQB ENLARGEMENT Of IIME PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 24, 1998, this Court ordered PCSSD and Joshua to submit, within ten days, the agreed amendment to the PCSSD Desegregation Plan together with a joint motion, brief in support and proposed notice. The parties desire an enlargement of time to comply with the Court's Order until and including April 9, 1998. WHEREFORE, Joshua and the PCSSD pray for an enlargement of time until and Including April 9, 1998 within which to comply with the Court's directive. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 c00d THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 dll SEIN I NH3.f '8 '.!-.3S@ I 7 'lH':l I ~M \u003e t CERTIFICATE OF EBYICE On April ___(_ ~_, 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Janes 425 West Capltol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 00d 2 dll S':JN I tlN3f '8 ' X3SCTN I 7 ' lH':J I df~ RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AP.KANSAS APR 8 1998 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR O 71998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JA~AES ! M~MACK, C~ERK By. ~ ) c}_ ~ D!:P CL.fR.~ ' UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,  Plaintiff,  vs.  No. LR-C-82-866  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants,   MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.,  lntervenors,   KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.,  Intervenors.  ORDEB. Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District  (\"PCSSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting a continuance to and including April 9, 1998 in which to file their agreed proposed Revised PCSSD Desegregation Plan, in addition to a joint motion and brief in support requesting that the Court approve the proposed Revised Plan and a notice regarding the proposed Revised Plan.  This Court grants the parties' request. The PCSSD and Joshua have to and including April 9, 1998 in which to file these documents and pleadings. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7~ day of April 1998. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTER COMP~ce T RuJ~e c:g,0OcRK7er SHEET IN ON  7/ 8 l!Y 7Z1-:: 9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT APR 8 199,9 EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESE6REGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR O 7 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * JA~ES W. ~~ORMACK, CLERK By.. 'L 'QI ,u D 41 V'-:a DEP CI.ERll Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a reply filed by Ms. Hafeeza Majeed on April 6, 1998 on - behalf of Toe Fact-Finding Committee for the Little Rock School Desegregation Plan--Is It Working for African-American Youth?\" Ms. Majeed filed this reply in response to Mr. John Walker's letter regarding Ms. Majeed's initial objection to the proposed January 16 Revised LRSD Desegregation Plan. 1 The Clerk is hereby directed to serve the parties involved in this case with copies of this Order and attached Exhibit A. 2 By separate Order, the Court will inform the parties how the   Court will proceed in regard to Ms. Majeed's latest filing. 1 See Docket No. 3130 for a copy of Ms. Majeed's initial objection. See Docket No. 3135 for Mr. Walker's response to Ms. Majeed's objection. 2 The Clerk should also send copies to the following individuals: Mr. Markton Cole Ms. Hafeeza B. Majeed 7320 S. Ridgeland Ave. 2A 8505 Holmes, #174. .. Chicago, Illinois 60649 Kansas City, Missouri 64131 ; . i IT IS SO ORDERED TiilS  day of April 1998. fHIS DOCUMENT E1.JTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ;~~ t'$RULE s:;N~(a) FRCP - . ,, \\. 2 .. ,. . ' . ~:' : \" : April 6, 1998 TO: FROM: ;-;:: ,. :l rr.: --..... U~- -~ - . _ ) ... .'?  :.. . I'~., , . 1. I l I  , _ _ EAs, .:Hr, c:, ie:~ -\u003c, ~.'-: .. ,1r The Honorable Susan Webber Wright -'..' .. l.-f  ' :_;,:s,\\s Federal Judge Eastern District of Arlamsas, Western Di~ U 6 [SJ J/l.~:1:::~ ,., i i~l'.C'R . \" The Fact-Findina Conmiittee for the Little Rock S:choortiisTtfor ,,\\,,.._, /(, CCRK D~H,,-.,-in ftllBl h It w~ Pw MHv1B1Amm,1m Ym;f,91'' THROUGH: Hafeeza B. Majeed, Cbairpenon RE; LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Judge Wright: V: LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUN1Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOTICE (EXHIBIT C, JANU'ARY 16 REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN'') The following open letter to Little Rock School District students.parents. and friends. is also a formal request desiring your approval: \"OPEN LETTER JO 11IE UITLI ROCK COMMUNITY\" \"Thank yor/' to the maoy friends and supporters ofThe Fa.rt-Finding Committee with whom I met and enjoyed talkin! to during the weekend. A special iha:nk yor/\u003e to those who supported our efforts with your signatures. AB promised to you, the following request to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright has been submitted in your behalf 1. We, the 1D1dersigned, recognize that we are represented in the Joshua Class, as defined by the attached \"Notice.'' (Exhibit C. LRSD January 16 Revised ..,. . 3. Plan)  We agree that we were provided a copy of the ~otice .. by the Fact-Finding Committee, represented by Ms. HafeezaB. Majeed. We agree, like several others who chose not place their signatures, that we have not been informed about the information contained in the attached \"Notice'' regarding the proposed Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We believe that the responsibility for BIDlOIDlcing this information to the cormmmity should rest with ColDlSel for Joshua, Attorney Jolm W. Walker, as well as with the LR.SD Board ofDirectors, as designated in the \"Notice.\" We ~e that we have not been informed by the Little Rock School District regarding information contained in the \"Notice.'' Therefore, we respectfully request that you delay your approval or disapproval of the Revised LR.SD Desegregation and Education Plan, pending the following:  Court's Exhibit A 1. Counsel for the Joshua Class, Attorney John W. Walker, should schedule a fonnal hearing to adequately iofonn the Joshua Cius about the Revised LRSD Desesregation and Education Piao. This hearing shall be scheduled at a time conducive to the schedules of working parentl. 2. The hearing shall be attended by a representative fi-om The Fact-Finding Committee, a representative from the LRSD , a represeotative :from ODM. and the Joshua Class. 3. Io sight of the fact that many persons who are defined as \"Joshua\" have not been afforded adequate and timely information regarding the Revised LRSD Desegregation and Education Plan; we request that the LRSD anno1mce an extended deadline to receive written objections to the Piao. The Fact-Finding Committee prayermlly seeks yow approval of this request that represents the concerns ofLRSD Pareots, students, aod friends who were interviewed by our representative, Ms. Hafeeza B. Majeed, during the weekend. Again, ''thank yoli' :from The Fact-Finding Committee. and we shall continue to \"Fight For Our Children.\" Respectfully,  J L ~ 1f. fr[a1u,f Hafee:1-~*ed, Chairperson f' cc: All Signees ColDlSel for Joshua Class LRSD ODM Attachments ---------- - - --- -- - - - ---- ---- - ------ - -- - -  .. - - -------- - - --  --- - - . . . -  - - - . . - ---- EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1003-1 071) ROBERT S. LINOSEY ( 1013- 1001) ISAAC A. SCOTT,_./R . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULOROW-N. M. NORTON EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAODEN WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 llTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 379-0442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD April 9, 1998 ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR . HARRY S. HURST . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA A. SIEVERS JAMES M. MOODY, JR . KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY M. ROBINSON BETSY MEACHAM AINSLEY H. LANG KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON DON S. McKINNEY MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol, Room 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 HAND DELIVERED Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Dear Judge Wright: APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed are copies of each of the items you directed the PCSSD and Joshua to prepare as regards the amendment to the PCSSD Plan. I have retained the originals for the moment as they do not bear Mr. Walker's signature. Mr. Walker has indicated some doubt about his execution of these documents and I am simply submitting copies so as to comply with the Court's deadline as best I can. By copy of this letter to Mr. Walker, I am asking him to communicate his current position .~o the Court. MSJ/jhs Enclosures Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP Jon~_,/ I I I cc: Counsel of record (w/encl.) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE!VED APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENOR$ INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF PCSSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF PCSSD'S MARCH 24 PLAN Defendant Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the Joshua - lntervenors (\"Joshua\") for their Joint Motion for Approval of PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan state: 1. Joshua and PCSSD move for tentative and, ultimately, final approval of PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit \"A\"). 2. On October 14, 1997, PCSSD filed its Petition seeking release from federal court jurisdiction (the Petition). Prior to the start of the hearing on the Petition, PCSSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop an amended plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan. The PCSSD Board of Directors approved the Plan on March 23, 1998 and authorized submission of the Plan to this Court for approval. 3. PCSSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this tit Motion: a. That the record in this case supports modification of PCSSD's desegregation obligations; b. That the March 24, 1998 Plan is an appropriate modification of PCSSD's desegregation obligations. c. That the March 24, 1998 Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members; and, d. That, upon approval of the Plan, the PCSSD should be dismissed as a party to this case except as respects its financial claims arising under the settlement agreement. 4. PCSSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement should not be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, PCSSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua class members to submit written objections to approval of the March 24, 1998 Plan. PCSSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. PCSSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; shall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers; and shall prominently post the notice at all schools. 5. PCSSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, PCSSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members; that the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B be published at least thirty (30) 2 days bef~re the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections; and that this Court finally approve PCSSD's March 24, 1998 Plan upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 By: 3 THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 By: _________ _ John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April ___ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill 4 Section 1: Pulaski County Special School District Plan Dated March 24, 1998 Prior Agreements and Orders. RECEIVED APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 1. This Plan, which is a \"Desegregation and Education Plan,\" shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreeme:nts and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 ( \"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; e. The Interdistrict Plan; and f. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Plan. SECTION 2: Obligations. 2.1. PCSSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to - comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past EXHIBIT 1 I A APR 1 0 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF PCSSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF PCSSD'S PLAN This motion is brought pursuant to the amendment provision of the Pulaski County Special School Distirict permanent Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, as well as Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1., 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995); Appeal of the Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F .2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991 ); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 THEJOSHUAINTERVENORS John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 By: _________ _ John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April ___ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. Mail to each of the following: Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M. Samuel Jones, Ill 2 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STAff.S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KA IBERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * No. LR-C-82-866 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FBLED US. ulS T;;:1cT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR!\u003cANSAS APR 1 0 1998 Before the Court are the initial joint motion and the renewed joint motion filed by the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting that this Court approve the LRSD's proposed Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"LRSD Proposed Revised Plan\" or \"proposed Plan\").1 L Approval of the Proposed Plan After evaluating the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court hereby grants the joint motions filed by the LRSD and Joshua and hereby approves the proposed Plan. 1 Docket Nos. 3107 and 3136. 1 A. In 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the current version ofLRSD Desegregation and Education Plan or the 1990 Plan. In 1996, after the LRSD had operated under the 1990 Plan for six (6) years, this Court scheduled a series of hearings to gather evidence upon which to evaluate the success of the 1990 Plan, along with the settlement plans of the other districts, and the desegregation remedies endorsed therein. 2 At that time, even though the Court had withdrawn supervision over certain aspects of the 1990 Plan, there remained portions of that Plan which were of concern to the Court. Therefore, the Court called expert witnesses to testify, and invited the parties to call other expert witnesses to testify, regarding desegregation remedies in general in an attempt to aid the Court and the parties in evaluating the effectiveness of the 1990 Plan. Those evidentiary hearings were held in May of 1996.3 At those hearings and on several other occasions, the Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present for Court approval any proposed modifications to the desegregation and education plans under which they operate. In December of 1996, the LRSD requested and this Court approved a \"plan development period\" in which the LRSD could concentrate its efforts on developing such modifications to the 1990 Plan, in an attempt to 2 Docket No. 2631. 3 The following expert witnesses testified: (1) Herbert J. Walberg, Ph.D., then a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago . See Docket No. 2692. (2) David J. Armor, Ph.D., then a Research Professor at George Mason University in the Institute of Public Policy. See Docket Nos. 2693, 2694. (3) Gary Orfield, Ph.D., then a Professor of Education and Social Policy at Harvard University and the Director of The Harvard Project on School Desegregation. See Docket No. 2768. 2 improve education and desegregation within the district. Some time during this period, the LRSD commenced negotiations with Joshua regarding modifications to the 1990 Plan. As a result of those negotiations, the LRSD and Joshua agreed upon the provisions included in the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan currently before the Court. B. The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan: shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S .D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 5 Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that because the law strongly favors settlements, courts should hospitably receive them, especially in cases such as this in which the parties have engaged in protracted, highly divisive litigation and in which any lasting solution necessarily depends upon the good faith and cooperation of all of the parties. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Spec. Sch. Dist., 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (811, Cir. 1990). When evaluating a settlement agreement, \"O]udges should not substitute their own 4 Docket No. 2901. 5 Docket No. 3107, Exhibit A, at 1. 3 judgment as to optimal settlement terms for the judgment of the litigants and their counsel.\" 921 F.2d at 1385 (quoting Armstrong v. Board of Sch. Dirs. of the City of Milwaukee, 616 F.2d 305, 315 (7111 Cir. 1980)). The district court must consider the proposal as submitted by the parties. \"Of course, the district court may suggest modifications but ultimately, it must consider the proposal as a whole and as submitted. Approval must then be given or withheld.\" Id. at 1383 ( quoting Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm 'n of the City and County of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 630 (91h Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1217 (1983)). Although settlement agreements carry with them a presumption of acceptability, id at 1385, a district court need not automatically approve every settlement agreement the parties submit, id at 13 83 . A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in  an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed, they are not pennitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. Id. at 1383 . \"[B]efore a settlement agreement may be rejected because it initiates or authorizes a clearly illegal or unconstitutional practice, prior judicial decisions must have found that practice to be illegal or unconstitutional as a general rule.\" Id at 1385 (quoting Armstrong, 616 F.2d at 321). In the area of desegregation law, the Supreme Court has detennined that the Constitution does not of its own force forbid all-African-American schools. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 26 (1971). The Constitution of its own force also does not require any particular racial percentage in various schools in the districts. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-41 (1974). Furthermore, the Constitution of its own force does not demand that all students 4 regardless of race satisfy national achievement norms. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 100-01 (1995). Obviously, parties in a desegregation case may and indeed should agree to eliminate the effects of prior de Jure segregation to the extent practicable. However, the details of such efforts are not specifically dictated by the Constitution. Even if the court is uncertain that the means proposed in the settlement agreement will succeed in integrating the district or concerned that the lack of sufficient detail in the settlement agreement may impede successful implementation, such concerns alone do not render the settlement agreement unconstitutional on its face, especially when the parties to the settlement agreement have consented to continued monitoring. 921 F.2d at 1385-86. This Court has carefully reviewed the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan as jointly submitted by the LRSD and Joshua and concludes that the Revised Plan is not manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. The parties have consented to continued monitoring by this Court. Although the Court acknowledges that the Revised Plan will present new challenges in regard to monitoring, these anticipated challenges do not render the Revised Plan unworkable or plainly unconstitutional. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be and hereby is approved. C. In the alternative, if this Court were to consider the proposed Plan as simply a modification of the 1990 Plan, this Court would approve the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. A party seeking modification of a consent decree \"must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree.\" Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). If the moving party meets this burden, the District Court 5 must then detennine \"whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.\" Id. at 39 1. The modification \"must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation,\" nor \"strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it confonns to the constitutional floor.\" Id. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. , 56 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). This Court concludes, after reviewing the circumstances of this case and the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, that this standard for modifying a consent decree has been satisfied. Based upon the voluminous Court record generated by this case since the 1990 Plan was instituted and based upon the conclusions which may be drawn from the evidentiary hearings conducted by this Court in May of 1996, this Court concludes that circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant modifying the 1990 Plan. Specifically, there are certain aspects of the 1990 Plan that have been successfully implemented by the LRSD. Some areas of the 1990 - Plan have been so successfully implemented that this Court has withdrawn supervision over those areas. However, there are other stated goals in the 1990 Plan which have not been achieved. Evidence in the record tends to indicate that the LRSD has put forth minimal effort to achieve certain of these stated goals. More importantly, however, there are certain goals in the 1990 Plan which are out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD6 and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan which expert testimony indicates may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. 7 Therefore, the 1990 Plan warrants 6 For example, the sections of the 1990 Plan regarding Student Assignment and Facilities are out of date with regard to the current situation that exists in the LRSD. 7 Specifically, the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparity may never be met, regardless of the effort put forth by the LRSD. See the testimony of Dr. Walberg, Docket No. 2692, at 17-25; Dr. Armor, Docket No. 2693, at 18-39; and Dr. Orfield, Docket No. 2768, at 25-31. 6 - -- - - - modification. Furthermore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. The LRSD Proposed Revised Plan is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances, does not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation, and has not been rewritten to conform only to the constitutional floor. Therefore, this Court concludes that the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan should be approved. D. Having approved the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan, this Court notes that once a modification to a consent decree or a decree itself has been approved by the Court, its terms, . including the details, become binding on the parties. 921 F.2d at 1384. Although at this time the - Court does not anticipate the need for further modification, the Court does wish to clarify that if progress under this Revised Plan is clearly insufficient or if certain sections of the Revised Plan should prove to be unworkable, the parties may again apply for a modification of the Revised Plan. Consent decrees partake of the nature of contracts, as well as of judicial action, and parties seeking to change them bear an extremely heavy burden. They are not, however, immutable in any absolute sense, and extraordinary circumstances can arise that would enable the District Court, within its discretion, to consider modifications. Id. at 1387. II. Objections to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan By previous Order, this Court directed the LRSD to provide notice of the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan and set March 13, 1998 as the deadline for receiving objections to the 7 - proposed Plan from individual members of the Joshua Class and from other parties to the litigation. 8 Dr. Leslie V. Carnine, Superintendent of the LRSD, submitted an affidavit indicating that the LRSD had complied with the Court's Order regarding notice of the proposed Plan. 9 A. The Court notes that although the other school districts and parties in this case were not involved in the negotiations which produced this proposed Plan, those parties were given notice of the proposed Plan and of their ability to object. 10 None of those parties have filed an objection with this Court to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. B. On the last day for filing objections, Mr. Markton Cole, on behalf of \"The FactFinding Committee for the LRSD Desegregation Plan--Is It Working For African-American Youthr (\"Fact-Finding Committee\"), filed several documents which he characterized as an objection to the proposed Plan. 11 The documents which Mr. Cole filed included a letter from Ms. Hafeeza Majeed, the Chairperson of the Fact-Finding Committee, and a report initially submitted by the Fact-Finding Committee to the Court on September 20, 1996. In response to the documents filed by Mr. Cole, Mr. John Walker, counsel for Joshua, filed a letter essentially requesting that this Court strike the documents and not consider the 8 Docket No. 3114. 9 Docket No. 3131. 10 Docket No. 3114. 11 Docket No. 3130. 8 - documents an objection to the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. 12 Mr. Walker claims inter alia: (1) that the documents filed by Mr. Cole and Ms. Majeed had been previously submitted to and considered by this Court; (2) that the documents pertained to the LRSD Desegregation and Education Plan entered into by the LRSD and Joshua in 1990 (\"the 1990 Plan\"), not the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan currently before the Court; and (3) that Mr. Cole and Ms. Majeed lack legal standing to object because they are not residents of the LRSD and do not otherwise allege that either they or their own children will be harmed by the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan. This Court agrees with Mr. Walker's assertions and hereby strikes the documents filed by Mr. Cole on behalf of the Fact-Finding Committee and Ms. Majeed. Specifically, the Fact-Finding Committee report filed by Mr. Cole was previously submitted to this Court in September  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1695","title":"Court filings concerning exhibit and witness lists, affidavit of Leslie V. Carnine, ODM ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Walker, John W."],"dc_date":["1998-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Finance","School management and organization","School integration","School discipline","School facilities","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning exhibit and witness lists, affidavit of Leslie V. Carnine, ODM ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1695"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["71 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Joshua's exhibit list for March 24, 1998, hearing; District Court, Joshua's witness list for March 24, 1998, hearing; District Court, Joshua's supplemental exhibit list for March 24, 1998, hearing; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) witness and exhibit list; District Court, supplemental responses to the Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD), affidavit of Leslie V. Carnine; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, order; District Court, renewed joint motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY MAR 9 1QGP lv ...., v LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OFFlCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. ENCLOSURE MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 1998 TO: Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. . Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. A ~oo Capitol Towers ~apitol \u0026 Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FROM: John W. Walker Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026 Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ms. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD, et al. v. PCSSD, et al.; NO. LR-C-82-866 ENCLOSURES: JOSHUA'S EXHIBIT LIST FOR MARCH 24, 1998 HEARING JOSHUA'S WITNESS LIST FOR MARCH 24, 1998 HEARING IF ANY OF THE ABOVE LISTED DOCUMENT(S) ARE NOT ENCLOSED, PLEA.SE CALL THE A.BOVE NUMBER. THANK YOU. --:;_ _----------- .,._ RECE,rlED - MAR 9 i998 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION .--, -  - ~ ..J -i _ , ' ! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S EXHIBIT LIST FOR MARCH 24, 1998 HEARING The Joshua Intervenors submits the documents as exhibits for the hearing scheduled herein for the week of March 24, 1998: 1. PCSSD assessments and evaluations of programs 2. PCSSD academic achievement statistics from 1993 to present . 3. PCSSD discipline statistics from 1992 to present 4. PCSSD recruitment report from 1994 to present 5. PCSSD staff development reports from 1994 to present 6. PCSSD gifted and talented reports from 1994 to present 7. PCSSD extracurricular activities including athletic and nonathletic programs reports from 1994 to present 8. ODM report on Achievement Disparity dated 6/21/95 9. 1998 ODM report on Racial Balance 10. 1998 ODM report on Discipline 11. ODM Report on Staffing dated 9/15/95 12. Excerpts of testimony from Gary Orfield dated May 30, 1996 13. PCCSD reports on Racial Isolation from 1994 to present 14. PCSSD reports 15. PCSSD Discipline Management system 16. PCSSD reports on In-School Suspension and Saturday School 17. PCSSD reports on Pupil Personnel Committee regarding expulsion recommendations 18. PCSSD reports on multicultural education frdm 1994 to present 19. PCSSD reports on special education from 1994 to present 20. UALR reports of PCSSD programs on academic achievement 21. PCSSD reports from the Office of Desegregation from 1994 to present 22. Report of Billy Bowles and Charles Green re: Robinson High School dated November 11, 1996 . 23. ODM Recommmendations regarding Robinson High School 24. Photographs of racial epitah on PCSSD school bus 25. Diagram of racial epitahs on PCSSD property 26 . Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Bobby Lester 27. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony Bobby Altom 28. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Billy Bowles 29. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Eddie Collins 30. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Charles Green 31. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Tommie Anthony 32. Excerpts of Deposition Testimony of Gary Miller By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 ( 374-3758 CERT I FI CAT I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of record, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this 6th day of March, 1998. RECEIVED ' MAR 9 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ey: - - -----=----=--,- ...,..~ -~, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT v...: :'  .._ _.: ,. .. \\ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S WITNESS LIST FOR MARCH 24, 1998 HEARING The Joshua Intervenors submits the following persons as witnesses for the hearing scheduled herein for the week of March 24, 1998: 1. Bobby Lester, Superintendent of Schools 2. Billy Bowles, Asst. Supt. for Desegregation 3. Eddie Collins, Asst. Supt. for Pupil Personnel 4. Bobby Altom, Asst. Supt. for Instruction 5. Gary Miller, Asst. Supt for Personnel 6. Charles Green, Director of Secondary Education 7. Sarah Womble, Director of Elementary Education 8. Tommie sue Anthony, Coordinator of Talented and Gifted 9. Brenda Bowles, Coordinator of Multicultural Education 10. Martha Asti, Director of Special Education 11. Ruth Hertz, Director of Desegregation 12. Jerry Welch, Coordinator of Student Hearings 13. Doug Ask, Director of Staff Development 14. Mildred Tatum, Member of Board of Education 15. Gwendolyn Williams, Member of Board of Education 16. Georgia Norris, Pupil Personnel Specialist 17. Ann Clem, Pupil Personnel Specialist 18. Bill Barnes, Principal - Mills High School 19. Michael Nellums, Asst. Principal - Mills High School 20. Charles Green, Principal - Jacksonville Middle School 21. _____ Wilson, Asst. Principal - Jacksonville Middle 22. Florine Boone, Asst. Pricnipal Robinson Jr. High 23. Joy Plant, Asst. Principal - Robinson High School 24. Phil Clark, Asst. Principal - Jacksonville 25. Georgia Norris, Pupil Personnel Specialist 26. Dinah Withers, parent 27. Derrick Withers, student 28. Christopher Withers 2 9. Mr. ______ Withers 30. Earnestine Morgan, parent . 31. Antwine Wilson, student 32. Quentin Bailey, parent 33. Emory Moore, parent 34. Emmanuel Moore, student 35. Keith Straughan, Principal - Robinson Jr. 36. Linda Nuggent 37. Sue Martin, Principal, Adkins Elementary 38. Brenda Allen, Principal - Oak Grove High School 39. Coach Steve Adair - Oak Grove High School 40. Linda Clark, parent 41. Ashley Tate, parent 42. James Wiley, parent 43. Jamaal Wiley, parent 44. Marcia Warren 45. Bernice Hooks 540. Marcia Warren 46 . Sharon Patten, parent 47. Coach Wayne Davenport, Robinson High School 48. Peggy Flowers, parent 49. Lakia Watkins, student 50. Lawrence Stewart, parent 51. Lawrence Stewart, Jr., student 52. Janie Lawson, parent 53. Robin Wakefield, parent 54. Velma Moore, parent 55. Lisa Little, parent 56. Mary Anderson, parent -57. James Guy, parent 58. Kim Guy, parent 59. Stephanie Nichols, student 60. Melanie Nichols, student 61. Barbara Trotter, parent 62. Ashley Bush, student 63. Sue Clark, Prinicipal - Sylvan Hills Junior High 64. Charles Ferriter, Asst. Principal - Sylvan Hills High 65. Verna Finney, parent 66. Chris Bolden, parent 67. Mansell Twillle, Asst. Principal - Sylvan Hills Junior 68. Teresa Young, parent 69. Herman Lee, parent 70. Cathy Lee, parent 71. Anita Straw, parent 72. Michael Woods, parent 73. Bertha Farmer, parent 74. Joyce Lowrey, parent 75. Jackie Robinson, parent 76. Gary Parson, Principal - Jacksonville High School 77. Doug Ask, Coordinator of Staff Development 78. Jo Wilcox, Coordinator of Extracurricular Activities 79. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 80. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 81. Horace Smith, Office of Desegreation Monitoring 82. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 83. Melissa Gauldin, Office of Desegregation Monitoring . 84. Norman W. Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring 85. Dr. Steve Ross, Joshua expert witness 86. Michael Anderson, Director of Safety and Security 87. Michael Dobson 88. Richard Rowland 89. Charity Smith, ADE 90. Frank Anthony, ADE Joshua also reserves the right to call any witnesses listed on the list of the defendant, Pulaski county Special School District. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little R ck, -~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the fore~~ing was been hand delivered to all counsel of record on this \u0026ffe day of March, 1998. IN THE .UN!TED STATES DISTRICT COUrtT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS.ll.S \\JESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. LR-C-82-865 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO . l, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS . LORE~ JOSHUA, ET AL. !NTERVENORS :\\ . .:..THERINE KNIGHT , ET AL. ::::Jfl'ERVEHORS JOSHUA'S SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT LIST POR MARCH 2-1..t 19S8 HEARING The Joshua I ntervenors s~brnits the following supplenental documen~s as e xh ibits for the hearing scheduled herein for the week of Earch 24 , 1998 : 1. Curriculum Vitae of Dr . Stave Ross 2. Excerpt s oi Dep::,si-c2.on test ir::.:::-11y of ;::: a ,.,,- i ,j .::..r::,cr 3 . Excerpts of Deposition te.s-:: L-:10ny of Hs~be~i:. Walbe1g 4. ?CSSD a~s~ers to Jos ~~a Inte~rogator~ss 5. PCSSD B~dgets for 199~ to present 6 . PCU 0072 0 7. PCU 1 8. PCU 14-16 9 . ?CU :36 -54 10. PCSSD School Profiles for 1994-95 school year 11. PCTJ ~04 12 . PCG 7 2 1 - 72 2 13. PCSSD TAG Facilitators from 1992 to present 14. PCSSD Advanced Classes and AP Enrollment for 1992 to present 15. ?CSSD Discipline reports dated 1992 to present 16 . PCSSD Special Education Monitoring Reports ~rom 1996 to present Joshua f~r~ter reserves the rights to adopt any exhibit submitted by the defenda~ts, Pulaski County Special School District. ?espectfully sub~i~tad, CERrIFICATE OF SE_R\\TICE I do hereby s~ate that a cop7 cf the foregc!~g was been delievered via ~acs ~~ il~ tc all c cc~sel cf reccrd c~ ~~is Stj of March, 19 98 . day ----- - ----- ------------ SC 137-1 -:11:3':' l,iHLk EF- LHld FI PM John W Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadwqy Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 Fax: (501) 374-4187 Ffu--X TRA\"/\\lSMISSION COVER SHEET .Date: To: . . -.. Fax: 371- 0 !0V Re: Sender: YOU SHOULD F.ECEIVE ]._ PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLF-ASE C4LL (501) 374-3758. The informAtion conta..ined in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and. co:.fidential informa.t.ion intended on:y for the u.se cf th: individual or entity urned above. If 6e re.s.der cf this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to delive: it to the l.ntended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution o:- copy.ng of this cowmunicatlon is strictly prohibited. If you have received this commtL\":ication in error, please immediate noti~; us by t.::lephMe, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Pest.al Sen,ice. Thank you. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82 - 866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST RECE,IED MAR q 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD submits the following as its exhibit and witness list: , EXHIBIT LIST 1. 1989 Releases (attached to Settlement Agreement) 2. ODM Racial Balance Reports 3 . Charts from PCSSD Petition for Release From Federal Court Supervision. 4. Staff Development Data 5. Charts pertaining to cheerleading, drill team, student government, Beta Club, and National Honor Society. 6. Affirmative Action Reports 7. Discipline Reports 8. Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline i . 9. Secondary Education Report 10. Counselor's Reports 11. Special Education Reports 12. Gifted and Talented Reports 13. Athletic Reports 14. Non-Athletic Reports 15. Biracial Committee Minutes 16. PCSSD Desegregation Plan 17. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan 18. PCU 1039 (Minority AP student recruitment). 19. PCU 1040 (Social Studies Advanced Placement Recommendation Notice). 20. PCU 1041 (Social Studies Advanced Placement Recommendation Followup Student Conference form). 21. The Special Master's Interim Findings and Recommendations concerning PCSSD geography and demographics , dated August 19, 1988, as previously transmitted to the Court on January 20, 1994. WITNESS LIST 1. Bobby Lester, Superintendent, PCSSD; 2. Bill Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, PCSSD; 3 . Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services, PCSSD; 2 4. Dr. Bobby Altom, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction; 5. Gary Miller, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel; 6. Don Stewart, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs; 7. Ed Hogan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services; 8. Charles Green, Director of Secondary Education; 9. Tommie Sue Anthony, Director of Gifted and Talented Programs; 10. Martha Kay Asti, Director of Special Education; 11. Brenda Bowles, Coordinator of Multi-Cultural Education. WITNESSES VIA PREVIOUS TESTIMONY 12. 1988 Testimony of Ed Hogan, docket No. 1059-A, dated June 16, 1988, page Nos. 6 through 213; and docket No. 1060 -A, dated June 17, 1988, page Nos. 6 through 162. 13. Douglas A. Ask, Docket No. 2540, testimony beginning at page 95. 14 . Bill Bowles, by recent deposition not yet transcribed. 15. Dr. Bobby Altom, by recent deposition not yet transcribed (including previous testimony given in open court in this case, the docket reference for which we have not yet located) . 3 16. Eddie Collins, by recent deposition not yet transcribed, 17. Charles Green, by recent deposition not yet transcribed. 18. Tommie Sue Anthony, by recent deposition not yet transcribed. 19. Brenda Bowles, by recent deposition not yet transcribed. 20. Dr. Herbert Walberg, Docket No. 2662A (hearing held May 13-15, 1996), transcript filed with the Clerk as Docket No. 2692) 21. Dr. David Armor, Docket No. 2662B (hearing held May 13-15, 1996), transcript filed with the Clerk as Docket Nos. 2693-94). PCSSD reserves the right to use any exhibit or witness referred to or used by the Joshua Intervenors. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 4 , - . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March __ f __ , 1998, a copy of the foregoing was served by hand delivery to Mr. Walker and by U.S. Mail on the remainder of the service list: Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 5 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82 - 866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIV~i MAR 1 8 1998 OFFICE OF . DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENOR$' INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE PCSSD (FEBRUARY 1998) The PCSSD for its supplemental responses to the Joshua Intervenors' Interrogatories and requests for production to the PCSSD states the following: INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If any of the persons identified in the answer to interrogatory No . 1 are expert witnesses, please state: (a) (b) (c) all opinions to be expressed by each expert; the basis and the reason for each opinion; all data or other information considered by the witness in forming such opinion. Please include in responding to this interrogatory each (i) employee of the PCSSD to give testimony as an expert, and (ii) any expert to \"te.stify\" by reliance on previous testimony in 1 this case (although intervenors do not concede the appropriateness of reliance on such testimony where there was no opportunity for normal discovery). SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: As previously stated in response to Interrogatory No. 3, it is possible that Dr. Altom may be called to testify concerning achievement disparity. His opinion, the bases for them, and some of the information considered by him is set forth in his deposition. Some of the reference/research materials used by Dr. Altom in formulating his opinion are as follows: Title Lies My Teacher Told Me The Promised Land American Slavery Warriors Don't Cry Crusaders in the Courts Civil Rights and Civil Wrongs The Content of Our Character The Closing Door Stepping Over the Color Line Beyond the Classroom Forced Justice America in Black and White The End of Racism Outcome Equity in Education Dismantling Desegregation Good Intentions are Not Enough Inside American Education Race 2 Author James Loewen Nicholas Leman Peter Kolchin Melba Beal Jack Greenberg Harry Ashmore Shelby Steele Gary Orield \u0026 Carol Ashkimaze Amy Wells, Robert Crain Laurence Steinberg David Armor Stephan \u0026 Abigail Thernstrom Dinesh D'Souza Robert Berne, Lawrence Picus Gary Orfield, Susan Eaton Katherine Kersten Thomas Sowell Studs Terkel I i I  I I I Statistics. Research Measurement Resource(s) Authors Gerald W. Bracey R. L. Linn, N.E. Gronlund Gilbert Sax WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By '-,?1~ M. ,s-\u0026muel;Jone ~(76060) ~ for PCSSD CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March --/ 7- -, 1998, a copy of the foregoing was serv ed by hand delivery to Mr. Walker and by U. S. Mail on the remainder of the service list: Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr . Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 3 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg . , Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 , III IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Mi\\R l 8 iS~B Q(-f\\CEOF DESEGREGATIOK MOKllORlNG DEFENDANTS J;NTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby gives notice ~f the filing of the Affidavit of Dr. Leslie v. Carnine related to LRSD's compliance with the notice requirements of the District Court's Order entered January 30, 1998. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people ~X depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this _rL_ day of 414fd...lk,,, , 1998. Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 w. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 nc. Fendley, Jr; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AFFIDAVIT DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS I, Dr. Leslie V. Carnine, being first sworn, state under oath as follows: 1. I am the Superintendent of the Little Rock School - District. 2. I have reviewed the district court's order of January 30, 1998 which directs the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to publish notice to the class of Joshua-Intervenors (\"Joshua\") of the pending motion by the LRSD and Joshua for approval of the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998. 3. LRSD has complied with the notice publication requirements of the district court's order of January 30, 1998. 4. Copies of the notice were made and distributed to all LRSD teachers on February 13, 1998. 5. The notice was posted in all LRSD schools beginning on February 11, 1998. 6. The notice was broadcast on LRSD' s cable channel on February 13, 18 and 24 and on March 2 and 9, 1998. 7. Attached as Exhibit A to my affidavit is a true and correct copy of proof of publication of the notice in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on February 8, 21 and 28 and on March 7, 1998. Further affiant sayeth not. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ) ss. ) Dr. LslV. Carnine Superintendent Little Rock School District DATE: ___.3_ -_t,_-~'1~r:....-____ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this day of March, 1998. My Comi~s1on Expires: .. 8-1-j{Jo'f 2 Arkana Democrat ~Q5azettc STATEj)'IENT OF LEGAL ADVERTISING Date :=to a..,,.._J__ ~ , ' 9 9 g Remit To; In Account With: Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. P.O. Box 2221 Little Rock, Ark. 72203 To Insure Proper Credit Refer To No ________________ _ Please remit yellow copy with payment .. Invoice No._ 5 '--f ~ 9 AD COPY 3~ Lines at _L_lLl ( ') \u0026 . ----- on the following dates: ____________ _ ~-J, Total Charge - Please Remit do solemnly swear that I am the legal billing clerk of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a daily newspaper printed and published in said County, State ef Arkansas; that I was so related to this publicatioi:i at and during the publication qf the annexed legal advertisement in the matter of_ ___ _ ____________________ L/L-( -~d::-i ( Q ( Q pending in the _______ Court, in said County, and at the dates of the several publications of said advertisement stated above, and that during said periods and at said dates, said newspaper was printed and had a bona fide circulation in said County; that said newspaper had been regularly printed and published in said County, and had a bona fide circulation therein for the period of one month brf.ore the date of the first publication of s~id adv~rtisement; and that said ~d.ver.; iscmeut was ~uolished in ti1c regular daily issues of said newspaper at s~c1icu above. Subscrib~d and sworn to before me this) day oft 'rr\\.c~ ,1~2 -~__L._--~~- OFFICIAL SEAl VICKI A. MCBRIDE NOTARY PUBLIC. AR.rANSAs PULASKI COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 04-15-2006 Notary Puhl ic    C0 en -en  : . WllElHTEOSTATES .  .  DISTRICT COURT . ; - ....  E.ASTcRN OISTRICT  \u003e OF AOONSAS ..  .. WESTERN DIVISlON Um:E  ROCX\" SCHOOl DISTRICT. PI..AINTIFF ~- (  Ul~-866 PUtASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SC/iOOl DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OE FENOliNTS MRS. tORENE JOSHUA; ET AL INTERVENORS KAJliERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS .   - NOTICE . TOJ\u003etE JOSHUA ClASS;  All 'PAST. PRESEHT ANO FUTURE .81.ACK OR AfRICAH.AMERICAN PUPILS WHO RESIDE IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS. ANO WHQ. ATTEND, HAVE ATTENOEO, Will: ATTENO. OR WHO ARE EUGleLE., WERE EUGl8lE OR Will BE ELK.IBLE TO ATTEND THE PU8UC SCHOOLS OF ONE OF THE THREE PUtASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (UTllE ROCK. NORlH UT nE POCK OR PUI.ASKJ COUNTY!. THEIR PARENTS ANO/OR NEXT FRIENDS WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED. OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED EOUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. OR WHO Cl.AIM. HAVE CLAlMEO OR MAY. CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OR' WILL BE THE VICTIMS Of RACE DISGAIMINA TlON IN EOUCA TlON SY. ONE OR MORE OF THE THREE PUl:ASl\u003cl COUNTY SCHOOL OISTRICJS Al:llOR BY THE STA TE Of AR~ arises cu defforts ,. nrq.. ii. 1956 to desegregate Ille~ . Rodi.: Nof1h Utllt Rodi and Naski Coanrr sd'oal dis1rids. In 1989 a SIi ilem1I - radled and apprOl'ld \"' wlich Ille Ult Rodi Sdl00I Oislrid (1.RSO'.) ~ 10 inplemenl lhe !UeIiSdiO\u0026 a~id Plan aPndla nI.l le Olnn- ~ 26. 1 . UISD submiUld ri = Yisect. . apprc r,al aonld LRESdOu'csa Rliotn- Ptaif dated ember 18. 1997. Fcl-lowi, g mnission. LASO and canel fer Jilt Josl'ua ~ (lwerlalt 'Jasllla1 enaaQld \"' el1enSNe Mgl)! lnonul an edoi1 10 dMIOp a rMed 1)1311 ).nic:11 ball, p3l1ies a:iuld SIJIIP0II. Those 118g0lialians resulted ii LRSO's Al!'lised Oesegregaticn and Educalion Plan-dated Jaooa,y 16. 1998 (\"~ 16.A!Med Ptan1,  Clo Januaiy 21, 1997, LASO and Jona filed a jcint request with lhe United  Slates Oisllid Court fer flt Easteni OisliCI ol Arkansas. Ille Hantfabll -Susan Wtib!t Wr91, lar ap, proval ti Ille J3lllll'f 16 ReviMd Plan. Tllc Jrua,y 16 Re'tised Plan baicaly pro:,ideS folows:  -~ ~: Prior Ageements and Or dets:  The:~ 16 Revised Plan wl rtpiace !ht amn1 LASO dese\u003c7egalian !)Ian., !ht lnrimtt ~ Piao-and al exiAng ~ and OlUrt\"oraets wilt1 some exceplians. It wil ~ no did on lhe Sepcern1Jer 21. 1989 . .setllemelt ~ -lhe Ma9- net Sdloal S1i1xmon daled Fellru3ly 2?,)987; lhe (Blrict COlll'I onlef dated ~ 3. {986, pet13r'ling 10 lhe Mq,et, Rt'liew Conrnittee; and. lhe IA-it\u003e-M ~ daled AuC)ust 2E.' 1986. ' Section 2: Otiigalions. LASO's basic ~ obligallons' tlfflain ~ ,. __ lllder lbr;Jaooa,y 16 AMed Plan as lllder Ille amnl ~ plal. The ollliJa1lals ate dea,ty and simply staled and ctNfif Mt'/ asped ol SCll00I ~ - The J3ll,aiy 16 Rl'fised l?tan .irldudes an r,en srong9f c:ommitmtfil 10 an equiCablt disrilution ol lacii11y ),y race. educalion and ezperiencir: .. .')lfp,gh some specifics n inculect; lhe' Jaroaty 16 Revised Plan conltf1'. 911h !hal ~ Ille lr1/1Si1ion ptriocl ~ dis1rid wil idenlily a/ld/Ol de- , Yei011' prog,wns. policies and ~  dw9I relalld IO HCII ollliga1ion. MU pen .setec1ed by lhe dis1ricl and a,\u003eptCIYld _by Joshua w,I assist Ille disn:I ~: ___ . '~ ~ (i/itiiiiiiic~,:mal \"' ltis process. Sealon 3; S1udenC AssicJwnenlS, Under 111t Jaooar, 16 llMld Plan. .,..~movtslromracillt.anca IO quality ecilc:alion. CMnJ 1111 ltrm ol lhe plan. ...,.,..., and ,... lm'igaMy libded lfell t1sWcllI0I cl1 0 alClen:d-a.n c,a. .-,,,.. hoed sd'oals with II many ol llmt neicfblrhoad sd'oals beina ..,.. !llled II p!1dical. Higll scnoal alllllaain zones may be rlli'awn 111 adWtt racial balanca wid'iil pu Of ni- 1111 lllerly P1rt11QJt p0l1IS flall Ill perter1agl ol AiicAmerican ... dents lcr hql sd'oals II I whale and. 10 lhe U1llnl praa,allle. fflli1llin a consislenl leeder paaem. V~ nlradislncl nnsl.s w,I a:intirlll 10 be alowtd I.Im NIis siNar IO !ht 116 111151Udeltassqvnertplan. The sa,dent wqrner'II plan also provides IOr Ille affifflion ol al U1SO ' ~ hql sd'oals 10 middle sdl00ls Jar grades six. - and eigtt a. cause ol capacily lrnllalionl  LRSO's Higll Sdloais. lhe aJnYtlSDI ID rridlll sa100ls may ~ lht aealion ol lllO IW11II grade scnools. Fc,ally. Ille Jaruary 16 AIYist Plan alls for Ille ainslruaion ol at least IIIO new aiea elementary sd1cois. one ii wes1 Lilllt Rod\u003c and one  Ille  ol !ht lormet Stepnens scllaal. When lhe new Stephens Elementa,y opens. one  Ol men Ille lncenM Sdloals wil be dosed. Seoon : lnlenislrid Sdloals. i lnferdaic:I sd'oals wil Cllf1lirue Ill : ~111ht'(dd:lhtlnlenis-l ~Adlievement The Jnlaly 16 Rl'lised Plan is loundld on a. belief lhal llf0'li:ing .,. err S1Udelt a quu1y edUCalion is ll1t j 111051 piomisr,g means ID lhe lq-tlrm deseqregalion ol LASO. It 0Ullines UISO's 1lasic sraiegy 1or 11\\uing a  S1Udents reaM a quality eclJcatiaa.  . indules an ur1y clildl00d dJCllion ' prt)113111.11Med~ ' ans am:wn lffl!)llasimg lhe prima-ry gr1deS. a rl'lised malhtmalics a,. ri:wn,anabmaMeciJCllianpn,grarn and pnntJI and CXlffll1Uily nvclYefflenl prt)l13l1I. MtfM ~ piece ol lht SIUdtnl achilMmel1  lion is a \u003cXllege scnolal!lip progra,n lar al studenlS who attend raa4y idenli6- ablt elemenWy sd1cois. Seoon 6: LRSD Compiance Pro- ~ wil ~ a ~ siYe ~ ~ ID ensure l subslanlialy ccmplies widl i1s desagr.gation ollligalicns and i1s Olher legal andet'ic:alobliQalions. . Sedion 7: Plan Mocillca1ion Pro-  Q!SS. The .Jaruaty 16 Re'lised Plan ndudes a pt0CeSS fer plan mocific3lion designed IO !date CXl0!)ffl1ion and disaxnge itigillion. LASO wil S1irni1 proposed plan mocilicalionl ID lhe ofl. \" panes wno wl hM an eSlabislled time lr3lne lor oomments and su,pslions. LASO wil !hen submil i1s ,_ ' mended plan modi6calion lar aut ap, prova. Pat1in would gane,aly be pnlholld lrom   issues belare .. dis1ricl CIJUtl ~ M1g .. c:ommenl period. ~~~~ r,g ~~~~ow:- . ganllng _,,...,_ yeaIrIs-. I  The plan establishes a process lar adffl! ing QlfflPlianca issues again desqled 10 ldlart C00!)ttalion and m- Cllln9' itigalion. Al ~ issues wil l'nl be subniatd Ill LASO. I no ageornen1 is readied. !he issue wil : be subnit1ed 10 OOM lar lacililalion. Only i OOM's ettons ii lacililating an aq,eemn Iii would lht issut be subnilted Ill lhe dislriclaut larresolueion. Seoon 9: T em1. The tenn ol Ille Rl'lised Oesegr lion and Educalion Plan wil be !hrN sctoa1 years begiming !he 1998-99 sd'oal yea, and enor-,q on Ille lasl day ol classes ol Ille ~1 sdl00I yeat. Fedefal court supervision wil end ii !NI time, and Ille dislricl wil rn#II IO local conllOI. Sedion 10: Transition. Thi 1997-98 SChool yea, and 1he 1n1 - ol lhe 1998-99 SChool ye wil be a rnitioA period in ptlpllllion ~ ~llalioll ol Ille Jaooa,y Section 11: ~ Stalus. I LASO subslanlialy metlS its obligalior, s l6idef lhe Jnwy 16 Rl'fised Plan. U1SO wil be inwy at lhe condusicll ol its llml and released from aut SllllMlion. The al\u003eowe is nol intended 10 be I U, dllailed-... of !ht RIIIIIY 16 flMtd Plan. The Jniary 16 RMld Pal. along with lhe amnt U1SO 0.. ~ Plan and lnletdislrict 0.. SIIJegation Plan. will be made MialJlt IO Josbla dass members cuinQ ~ business hotn ii LASO's aorrwilnM olbs al 810 W. Mar1lharn, UlltRodl.Arkwas. The purpose ol llis noCica is 10 advise Jos/111 dass membets ol lhe J3lllll'f 16 Revised \"'-1 and 10 rjve '- an appotmiy Ill show cause Ol III pivwidt - objeclions which ~ ,ol,y Ill nary 16 Rftised Plan shoud nol be ilj)plOYtd by lhe Dislrict Cotrt. Joslm Cius membets hM ,  lll'!.l t,e !~li',y of Marth, 1998 ID lit - Cl0rllMU Ol objeaions wifl lk. James McConnidl. U.S. Oislrid CCIII Oedt. U.S. Ccu1nouse, 600 W. ~ I.JIit Rock. Mansas 72201. Al Joslm class membets will be ll0lrd by lhe Dislrict Court's decision IJlllllMl!IOlrejec:!irq lhe~ 16 Al'listd  Plan. Absenl good cause --. there will be no heamg on whether flt J3lllll'f 16 Revised Plan shoud bl approved. ~. hs Hoict l)ffMdes Jona class nwnbtrs their Olly opporu,ity Ill olljed Ill ~oval \u003cJI lht Jnwy 16 Revised UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARl\u003cANSAS. WESTERN DIVISION \u0026166578 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * FILED U.S . DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR t 7 1998 DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * MAR 1 8 1998 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors. * ORDER By prior Order, 1 this Court set March 13, 1998 as the deadline for receiving objections regarding the January 16 Revised Plan. Attached hereto as Exhi "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1694","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report and executive summary; District Court, order; District Court, five notices of deposition; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, joint motion to postpone oral argument; District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1998-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","Court records","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report and executive summary; District Court, order; District Court, five notices of deposition; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, joint motion to postpone oral argument; District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1694"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["51 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  .... ..... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION CEV FEB 3 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING The Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of its February, 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report and Executive Summary. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMO Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by first class mail on this 2nd day of February, 1998, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 Boatmen's Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026 Street 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS (. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB O 2 1998 JA~i~ w ~CORMACI( QlER By.~ \\d\\J.../\\~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER FEB o/ 199S OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MmllTORlNG The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") has filed a supplement to past and ~W'1 pending claims against the state defendants. I Although this document has been filed, this Court has not docketed this document as and will not treat this document as a pending motion. Therefore, the other parties involved in this matter need not respond. If the PCSSD wishes to put these issues regarding the state defendants before the Court, the PCSSD may file a formal motion, accompanied by a proper brief in support pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, which sets forth the precise issues the PCSSD would like for this Court to consider. . ,.).  SO ORDERED THIS ,;2-day of February 1998. ~Jr\u0026 UNITEDSTATES DISTRICJUDGE 1 Docket No. 3111. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPU~/~H RULE 58 A~R 79(a) FRCP 0N 6./3 _ ., BY OEP CLERK JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY L!TILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. FEB 11 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING M. Samual Jones III. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 February 9, 1998 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et al., United States District Court No. LR-C-82-866 - Dear Sam: Please let this letter serve as confirmation to our conversation that we had last week. John wants to take the depositions of the following persons on Thursday, February 12, 1998, commencing at 10:00 a .m.: a) Bobby Lester, b) Eddie Collins, c) Billy Bowles, d) Bobby Alton, and f) Gary Miller. I have prepared notices for the following persons with times therein mentioned. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to give me a call. /apj Enclosures cc: John W. Walker Sincerely, Austin Porter Jr. Attorney at Law IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: Bobby Lester Superintendent NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Pulaski County Special School District No. I 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS RECElVED FEB 1 i 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOR!!~ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John W. Walker, P. A, will take the deposition of Bobby Lester, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @ 10:00 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 By C.J::J {J R. Austin Porter Jr., #8145 CERTIFICATE OF SER VICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this 9tJ+- day of February, 1998 on the following persons: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Eddie Collins Director of Pupil Personnel Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 OrFiCE C. DESE6REG.ATIOM MONffOn.lNB PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John W. Walker, P. A, will take the deposition of Eddie Collins, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @ 11:30 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 By: /2b-()-Jtj )?. _ Austin Porter Jr., #8'6145 CERTIFICATE OF SER VICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this ft-4-day of February, 1998 on the following persons: 1vfr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Austin Porter Jr., No. 86145 . ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. iv!RS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGITT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSffiON TO: Billy Bowles Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 RECEPftED FEB 1 1 i99S OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John W. Walker, P. A., will take the deposition of Billy Bowles, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @ 1:45 p.m. at the law offices of .JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. , 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. .. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 By: ()JS ws ~ Austin Porte0r.,#86145 CERTIFICATE OF SER VICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this 7~ay of February, 1998 on the following persons: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Austin P~rter Jr., No. 86145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. lVfRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Bobby Alton Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 925 East Dixon Road - Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 FEB 1 1 1998 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John W Walker, P. A., will take the deposition of Bobby Alton, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @ 3:00 p.m. at the law offices of .JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. , 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 I ~/ - 1 By: --l ,c:r/ . Austin Porter Jr.,# 6145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do her~by certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this 7fay of February, 1998 on the following persons: Ivfr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1-fr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Austin Porter Jr., ~86145 ' ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. l\\1.1.RS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Gary Miller Pulaski County Special School District No. I 925 East Dixon Road - Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MO~IITORJUG PLAINTIFF DEFENDA.t'\\J\"'TS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys John \\V. Walker. P. A., will take the deposition of Gary Miller, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used both for discovery and/or as evidentiary purposes, to the full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on February 12, 1998 @, 3:30 p.m. at the law offices of .IOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206. You are notified to appear and take part in the deposition. Respectfully ~ubmitted, John W. Walker, PA. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 By: --\\;:a,L--==---d----\"--+---Austin Porter Jr., # 6145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Austin Porter Jr., do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by United States Mail on this -2.._~y of February, 1998 on the following persons: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Stephen W. Jones Attorney at Law 3400 TCBY Tower Building 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Austin Porter Jr., N'o. 86145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * QRDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS FEB 1 3 1998 RECEIVED FEB 1 7 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG Before the Court is a joint motion filed by ServiceMaster Management Services, Inc. - rserviceMaster\") and the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"). ServiceMaster and the LRSD request that this Court dismiss without prejudice ServiceMaster as an intervening party in this proceeding. Both parties agree that ServiceMaster should now be dismissed from this proceeding because there are currently before the Court no disputes or issues regarding the arrangements between ServiceMaster and the LRSD. However, the LRSD has agreed that it shall notify general counsel's office of ServiceMaster as soon as practicable should any pleadings be filed with the Court, whether filed by the LRSD or other parties involved in this litigation, that relate to the LRSD's arrangements with ServiceMaster and that if such circumstances should arise, the LRSD will not object to a motion for leave to intervene filed by ServiceMaster. For good cause shown, this Court grants the parties' motion. ServiceMaster is hereby dismissed without prejudice as an intervening party in this case, pursuant to the conditions agreed upon by the LRSD and SeryiceMaster. SO ORDERED THIS /0--f\\.._ day of February 1998. OJ-. 7U ~~* uNITEDST ATES n1sTRIC JUDGE rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN GC,Mf\u003eUANCE W!::'LE 53 ANOJOR 79(a) FRCP -JN ,~//~  ev_V,....,\\ _ _ 2 discriJtlinat i on by PCSSD against African-American students, to provide that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of PCSSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending PCSSD schools. 2.1.1. PCSSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with PCSSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Plan and to assist PCSSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. The minimum term of the expert shall be for a period of time of at least two (2) years. 2. 2. PCSSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate (narrow the gap) the academic achievement of African-American students. 2. 2 .1. PCSSD shall continue to search for and implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of Afri can American students. The PCSSD will increase scrutiny at the system level of the implementation at the school level of the designated programs, policies and procedures. Any newly implemented programs shall have clearly stated goals that can 2 be measured in terms of student achievement. The student achievement measures shall have standardized scoring procedures and be sensitive to instructional effect, -including graduation rates and participation in upper level courses, by instructional and/or curricular change. 2.2.2. PCSSD will continue to brought about work with representatives of the University of Memphis to assess and possibly to increase the use of the \"Success for All\" program and other effective programs in the PCSSD. The program is now employed in t he Bates School. 2.2 . 3. PCSSD shall assess academic programs i mplemented herein after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the programs in improving African-American student achievement. The assessment shall utilize either control groups, or predictive measures that allow comparison to actual versus predicted effect. PCSSD shall take appropriate action i n the form of program modification or program substitution. 2. 3. PCSSD shall implement programs, policies and/or pr ocedures designed to provide that PCSSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner . 2. 3 .1. PCSSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of AfricanAmerican teachers which have allowed PCSSD to maintain a 3 2.6.3. Regarding the issue of an ombudsman for the PCSSD, ODM will assist the parties by undertaking a comprehensive assessment of the ombudsman concept. At the conclusion of the assessment period ODM will, in consul tat ion with the parties and before the start of the 1998-99 school year, recommend a person to fill the position of ombudsman. As a result of ODM's assessment, ODM will be able to: a. Articulate the needs which may be met by an ombudsman; b. Define the role of the ombudsman; c. Identify the relationship the with key administrators, such ombudsman as the would have Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel, the Superintendent, and the Board; d. Describe the decision-making processes in discipline matters; e. Identify the time commitments required of an ombudsman; f. Develop a comprehensive job description for an ombudsman; g. Recommend where the ombudsman will be placed; h. Recommend how the ombudsman will be paid. 2.6.4. PCSSD shall continue to work with students and their parents to assist those students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 7 2.6.5. PCSSD shall create and maintain for each student a11 student disciplinary records . that note the reasons for punishment, the teacher and/or other staff members involved, and the school, race and sex of the student disciplined. Collection and assessment of this information allows the school principal, parents and other administrative staff, PACT and PASS, to analyze the reasons for the disciplinary action by race and sex, and to determine if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems that require attention. The Assistant Superintendents for Pupil Personnel and Desegregation shall analyze data, including a sample of files concerning particular instances of discipline, to determine whether District policies have been followed, and whether there are a disproportionate number of African- American students being disciplined by category (meaning male and female students). They will make written recommendations for the elimination of any disparities. 2.6.6. PCSSD shall conduct a comprehensive study of the disciplining of African-American students, particularly male students, at the secondary level. The participants (a minimum of twelve ( 12) , one-half designated by the Joshua Intervenors and one-half by PCSSD and the PACT and PASS, shall consider the causes for high rates of discipline for African-American - students and possible remedies. The panel shall, among other 8 2 .. 8. PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next two years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of PCSSD and the education of PCSSD students. 2.9. The PCSSD shall not intentionally implement any programs, policies and/or procedures designed to negatively effect the allocation of financial, technological and educational resources in the PCSSD. The resources referred to herein do not include salaries and similar benefits. Should Joshua bring to the attention of the PCSSD matters which constitute material misallocation of resources, the PCSSD shall address in writing those allegations within thirty (30) days. 2.10. PCSSD shall not implement any programs, policies and/or procedures designed to diminish the equitable maintenance and repair of PCSSD facilities. 2 .11. PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and/or _procedures designed to eliminate racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. 2.11.1. Guidance counselors shall work with students in an effort to provide for more equity in academic honors, awards and scholarships. The guidance counselors shall be provided in-service training by the multicultural education 10 - coordinator with the view toward providing those persons with more knowledge and information regarding historically black colleges, scholarship availability, student loans and college preparatory information which may be helpful in assisting students in considering their educational options. Special emphasis shall be placed upon identifying ways by which to assist counselors in their encouragement of students for qualifying and meeting the requirements of standardized tests such as the preliminary SAT and ACT. 2.12. PCSSD shall continue to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to provide students in each PCSSD school a learning environment free from discrimination. 2.12.1. PCSSD shall implement an ongoing training program through the United States Department of Justice, the Arkansas Department of Education and/or the National Conference of Christians and Jews in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity~ 2 . 12.2. PCSSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the causes of racial disparities in participation in instructional programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. This responsibility shall be undertaken by coordination between the multicultural education coordinator and the other Instructional Division coordinators/directors . 11 PCSSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to provide that PCSSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Plan . 2.13.1 The PCSSD Superintendent shall be responsible for overseeing PCSSD's compliance with this Plan. SECTION 3 : STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS 3.1. Outside Students. PCSSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by PCSSD; and, 3.2 Transportation. PCSSD shall not provide transportation in the instances of (I) employee's child transfers and (ii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. SECTION 4 : SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION/CLOSING PCSSD shall have as its highest priority the construction of a school which replaces the Bates school. The initial site to be evaluated is in the proximity of 145th Street and 65/167. There shall be no new school construction or substantial expansion of existing schools which will precede this event. Moreover, the District shall not close schools which are located 12 - in pre~ominantly African-American areas absent reasons of compelling necessity (which does not include the opposition of white patrons to attending such schools). SECTION 5: RACIAL BALANCE This Plan recognizes that the desegregation of PCSSD does not require a particular racial balance at every PCSSD school or as obligating PCSSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every PCSSD school. However, the goal of the PCSSD is to assign students, so that no school should have a racial minority enrollment which is below twenty percent (20%) of the total school enrollment except that this minimum shall not apply to Lawson and Bayo Meta. SECTION 6: HOUSING PCSSD and Joshua commit to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent recurrence of, segregated housing patters. SECTION 6: INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS PCSSD and LRSD shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: 13 6.~. PCSSD Interdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school which may be constructed in the Chenal Valley area as Interdistrict Schools; except that Baker is not subject to the Interdistrict School racial balance goals. 6.2 LRSD Interdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as Interdistrict Schools; 6.3 Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the - majority race at the Interdistrict School; 6.4 Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD; 6.5 Recruitment. PCSSD and LRSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfer students and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfer students to interdistrict Schools; 6.6 Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition; and, 14 6.7. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the PCSSD for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. SECTION 7: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. 7.1. Early Childhood Education. PCSSD shall implement an early childhood education program which includes and shall continue to include a HIPPY program in all of the elementary schools in the southeast sector of the PCSSD. PCSSD also contemplates retention of the four year-old program in the schools where they are presently being operated. PCSSD also supports the HEADSTART program which ahs been operated through the local Community Action Program. In the event that the agency does not continue HEADSTART, PCSSD commits to consider seeking funding and support to operate the program itself. 7.2. Reading/Language Arts. 7.2.1. Primary Grades. PCSSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students ~ill be reading independently and. show understanding of words on a page; 15 b . Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c. Promote thematic instruction in the interdistrict schools and in those other schools where themes now exist; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f. Establish, where feasible, uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to schools without such experiences; 16 j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day; and, 1. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 7.2.2. Intermediate Grades. PCSSD intends to implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment; b. Promote thematic instruction; c. Establish, where feasible, uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction; d. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; 17 ---- - - f. Provide parents/guardians with comprehensive information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; g. Provide ongoing annual staff development for all teachers, train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom; and h. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 7.2.3. Secondary Schools. PCSSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades seven through twelve: a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subjects areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners; b. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula; c. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking; d. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies; 18 - ----- - e. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. . 7.3. Mathematics. PCSSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction; 7. 3 .1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation; 7.3.2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum; "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1689","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan, districts' supplement to past and pending claims against the state defendants, and ODM report, ''1997-98 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County School Districts''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1998-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School facilities","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan, districts' supplement to past and pending claims against the state defendants, and ODM report, ''1997-98 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County School Districts''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1689"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["111 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, joint motion of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Joshua for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of joint motion of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Joshua for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, districts' supplement to past and pending claims against the state defendants; District Court, addendum to districts' supplement to past and pending claims against the state defendants; District Court, order; District Court, memorandum opinion and order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''1997-98 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County School Districts''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * * FILED EA U.S. DISTRICT COURT STERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN I 2 1998 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. , * J.i\\i I } 3 1998 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESES.REGATICN MONITORlrJG Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District - (\"PCSSD\") requesting that this Court grant summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula. 1 The Arkansas Department of Education (\" ADE\") has responded to the PCSSD's motion.2 After carefully considering the motion and the response, this Court denies the PCSSD's motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula. Summary judgment is appropriate when \"the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the. affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material- fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). This Court concludes that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding formula. 1 Docket No. 3042. 2 Docket No. 3051. 104 Previously, this Court entered Orders granting summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions, 3 granting summary judgment on the issue of health insurance, and denying summary judgment as to special education and loss funding. 4 Currently, several of these issues are on appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eighth Circuit has yet to rule, and therefore, these issues remain unresolved. These unresolved issues relate to the issues raised by the PCSSD in its current motion for summary judgment pending before this Court. Furthermore, although not of record in this case, recent newspaper reports indicate that certain aspects of the funding formula are still being litigated in Arkansas state court. See Cynthia Howell, Lawyers Seek to Delay Trial in School Funding Suit, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Jan. 8, 1998, at 2B. Because there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the state funding formula, this Court denies the PCSSD's current motion for summary judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ff\\._day of January 1998. 3 Docket No. 2930. 4 Docket No. 2968. ~ ~,4t.1 UNITED STA ~ISTRICTJ GE fHfS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCk:ET SHEET IN COUPUANCE ~ RULE 5e ANOOA 7'9(8) FACP ON 1//t;;. ~ . IV  l/l1 :_ 2 MICHAEL E. GANS - Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT \u0026 CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 MARKET STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63101 January 16, 1998 VOICE (314) 539-3600 ABBS (BOO) 652-8671 Is. wustt.edu/Sth.cir RECEIVED Mr. Jim McCormack Clerk U.S. DIS1RICT COURT, EASTERN ARKANSAS Room 402 600 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 JAN 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ Re : 96-2047EALR L.R. School Dist. vs. Servicemaster Manag. Dear Clerk: The mandate of this Court is enclosed together with a receipt. Will the clerk of the district court please sign, date and return the receipt to this office. w~~~rt.~ Michael E. Gans Clerk of Court led Enclosure( s) District Court Clerk-Re : Files _x_Enclosed please find : 1 vol. 1R {J)a-J.nor- ~~e_J\\ 'Wt/!(J,,:m,Jj;) ( LETIER FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY) cc: Christopher John Heller Joseph Steven Mowery John C. Everett Samuel Arnold Perroni William Henry Trice III Richard Wilson Roachell John W. Walker Robert Pressman Norman J . Chachkin Philip K. Lyon M. Samuel Jones III Nelwyn Leone Davis Tim C. Humphries Office of Desegregation Monitor Horace Alvin Walker Perlesta Arthur Hollingsworth Kenneth G. Torrence Otis Henr y Storey District Court/Agency Case Number(s) : 82-CV -866 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~Q~t l~Ti:llCT cfJRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 1 111 ~ D,S I RI T Ar- '\\, N~\u003clS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 2 1 1998 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT J,%1~S WM CORMACK, Cl r:-r:i:\u003c B;:: PLAmTIFF O::? C~~ .~ v. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL JAN 2 3 1998 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS OFFICE Of KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF LRSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plainti.,ff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for their Joint Motion For Approval_ of - LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan state: 1. Joshua and LRSD move for tentative and, ultimately, fina l approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). 2. On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and requested approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated  September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On that date, counsel for Joshua confirmed in writing Joshua's agreement to support approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. See Exhibit B. Also on that same date, the LRSD Board of Directors approved the Janua~y 16 Revised Plan and authorized submission of the plan to this Court for approval. 3. LRSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this Motion: a. that the record in this case supports modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations; b. that the January 16 Revised Plan is an appropriate modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations; c. that the January 16 Revised Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members; and, d. that, if LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan during its term and implements in good faith the programs, policies and procedures related thereto, LRSD will be unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations at the end of the 2000-01 school year. 4. As a part of the compromise and settlement between LRSD and Joshua, Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation. 5. LRSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement cannot be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. ~ Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, LRSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit c. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua 2 class members to submit written objections to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. LRSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. LRSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette; shall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers; shall prominently post the notice at all. school; and shall cause the notice to be broadcast over the cable television channel controlled by LRSD. 6. In light of their agreement, LRSD and Joshua respectfully request that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled.  7. LRSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members; that the notice attached hereto as Exhibit c be published at least thirty (30) days the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections; that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled; and that this Court . finally approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS 3 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE, CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 s. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 BY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following pe?jes~ depositing a copy of same in the United states mail on this day of January, 1998. Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 w. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 General 4 SBC'l'IOII 1: Little Rock . School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan January 16, 1998 Prior Agreements and Orders. 1.1. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 2 8 , 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 1. 2. This Revised Plan does not affect the Joshua Intervenors' (\"Joshua's\") right to enforce the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little ' Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"). 1.3. Although this Revised Plan supersedes the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, LRSD expects to continue to work cooperatively with PCSSD and NLRSD in the areas addressed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. \"i' EXHIBIT I A SBCTXOH 2: Obligations. 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure , that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. 2. 2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in ' a fair and equitable manner. 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of AfricanAmerican teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers 2 to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. 2,2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. 2.2.s. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. 2.2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. 2.2.7. LRSD sha,l l negotiate with the Knight Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. 3 2. 4. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. 2. 5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 2. 6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures 4 . I designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. LRSD shall provide transportation to students otherwise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extra-curricular activity. 2. 7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 2. 7.1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of ( - 5 either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2. 8. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2. 9. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/ or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools. 2. 9. 1. Within 60 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2.9.2. Within 180 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall report by school the results of its assessment of the allocation of resources. 2.10. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities. 2.11. LRSD shall implement programs, procedures designed to ensure that there discrimination in the services. provision of guidance policies and/or is no racial and counseling 2 .11. 1. Guidance counselors shall work with students in an effort to provide for more equity in academic honors, awards and scholarships. 6 2.12. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination. 2 .12. 1. LRSD shall implement a training program through the United States Department of Justice, the Arkansas Department of Education and/or the National Conference of Christians and Jews in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. 2.13. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations  under this Revised Plan. 2.13.1 The LRSD Superintendent shall be responsible for overseeing LRSD's compliance with this Revised Plan in accordance Section 6. SECTION 3: Student Assignments. 3.1. Attendance Zones. While this Revised Plan does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan, LRSD attendance zones may be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 3.1.1. Satellite Zones. attendance zones where the impact LRSD may eliminate satellite would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students; 3. 1. 2. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD may assign students 7 to area1 elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent African-American) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in Section 3.1.3. below; 3.1.3. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent AfricanAmerican, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school; or, b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African-American students. If a satellite zone is established, it shall be of su'f ficient size to ensure substantial desegregation at the school. 3. 1.4. High Schools. LRSD may assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that, to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. 3.2. Voluntary student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 1The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 8 school year, the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 3.2.1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes le~s than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3. 2. 2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (~ 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to a racially balanced LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3.2.3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3.2.4. Employees' ,Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3. 2. 5. Special circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to 9 capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3.2.6. outside students. LRSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; and, 3.2.7. Transportation . LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following ,. exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. 3.3. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: a. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program; b. King High Intensity Learning Program; c. Washington Math Science Program; d. Henderson Health Science Program; e. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program; ,. f. Central International Studies Program; and, g. McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. However, LRSD agrees that during the term of this Revised Plan it will not modify 10 or discontinue a magnet program which is successful. 3.4. Middle Schools. LR.SD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or'all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to chan9e the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. 3. 5. Ninth Grade Schools. Because of limited capacity at LRSD's high schools, it may be necessary as a part of the orderly conversion to middle schools to establish two or more schools composed entirely of ninth grade students. If so, LRSD shall assign students to the ninth grade schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each ninth grade school shall be within plus or minus ten percentage points from the district-wide percentage of ninth grade African-American students. 3.6. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD sI+all not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor 11 maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. 3.7. Modification Standard. During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a schools other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable; or, past 3.7.2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines ( i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. 3.8. Racial Balance. This Revised Plan recognizes that the ,. desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. 3.9. Housing. LRSD and Joshua co:mmi t to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent 12  recurrence of, segregated housing patterns. SBC'l'IO 4: Interdistrict schools. LRSD and PCSSD shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: 4.1. PCSSD Interdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools; 4. 2. LRSD Interdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as Interdistrict Schools; 4. 3. Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School; 4.4. Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD; 4.5. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools; 4.6. Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition; and, 13 4. 7. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistric, t transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. \u0026BCTIOB s: student Achievement. 5.1. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. LRSD contemplates that the four yearold classes will remain at their present sites or in the same general location. 5.2. Reading/Language Arts. 5.2.1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal2 that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page; b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through _ reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c. Promote thematic instruction; 2The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. 14 d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day; and, 1. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5. 2. 2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: 15 ,. ,. a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment; b. Promote thematic instruction; c. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction;  d. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; f. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; g. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1697","title":"Court filings: District Court, emergency motion of the Joshua intervenors concerning the payment of attorneys' fees by the Little Rock School District (LRSD)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Joshua Intervenors"],"dc_date":["1997-12-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, emergency motion of the Joshua intervenors concerning the payment of attorneys' fees by the Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1697"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["53 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I  FILED U.S. DISTR ICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COtmTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 2 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NO. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED DEC 1 5 1997 OFFICE OF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENOR Emergency Motion of ~~Wt{-hWNlmifHGrvenors Concerning The Payment of Attorneys' Fees by the LRSD The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order providing for the payment of interim attorneys' fees by the LRSD to intervenors, periodically, in the manner described at the conclusion of this motion. The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the plaintiff class has adequate representation in the proceeding to consider the proposed, revised plan of the LRSD, and thereafter. This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum and the following allegations: (1.) The LRSD has filed a motion, which this court has scheduled for a hearing beginning February 2, 1997, seeking approval of a \"Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" This plan is 16 pages in length. In contrast, the current plan of the LRSD is approximately 230 pages in length and the Interdistrict Plan is 64 pages in length. (2.) It is the stated purpose of the LRSD, in part, to have 1 / the Revised Plan \"supersede and extinguish\" the current LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan. Revised Plan, at 1. (3.) The Revised Plan is in substantial part and in areas of critical importance merely an outline for a plan, rather than a plan that could be enforced by the court. For example: (a.) In 15 instances, in paragraphs II.B. through II.P, the words \"LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and\\or procedures,\" followed by a particular subject matter, appear. Revised Plan at 1-3. The \"programs, policies, and\\or procedures\" are not identified in the Plan. Compare Rule 65(d), Fed.R.Civ.Pro. (b . ) In Part V. of the Revised Plan, which deals with \"Student Achievement,\" the Plan specifies outcome goals for students in a way making it impossibe to determine the level of mastery intended. See Parts V.B.1.a. (at 8), V.B.2.a. (at 9-10), and V. B. 3. a. ( at 10) . (c.) In Part VII, the Revised Plan addresses a \"Compliance Program,\" without setting forth compliance standards. Revised Plan at 13. (4 . ) The Joshua Intervenors propounded written discovery requests to the LRSD concerning the Revised Plan. See copy of answers attached as exhibit A. One purpose of the discovery was to determine if the LRSD was willing to work with the Joshua Intervenors to render Part II. of the Plan, addressing \"Obligations,\" more specific. The LRSD made a nonresponsive answer to this query. Interrogatory 4 at 3. 2 /  (5.) One purpose of the discovery was to secure the identification of the underlying \"programs, policies and procedures\" which would appear to be determinative of the efficacy of the plan with regard to the plaintiff class. The answers to written discovery indicate that to a substantial degree, the underlying materials have not been identified. See Interrogatories 2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22(i), 23, 27, 30. (6.) One purpose of the discovery was to identify the reason or reasons why in many instances the proposed plan did not identify the particular programs, policies or procedures to be implemented. The LRSD responded that \"LRSD believes, in order for the Revised Plan to be successful, the details related to implementation of the revised plan must be subject to modification without district court involvement.\" Interrogatory 3. In responding to an interrogatory about school construction, the LRSD again indicated its intent to have the power to define and redefine standards determinative of the value of the revised plan for the plaintiff class. Interrogatory 23. (7.) The LRSD seeks the approval of a new plan which is vague and standardless in many important respects, and designedly so, in a context in which the court and ODM have, over the years, found the performance of the agents of the LRSD in implementing the court-approved agreements to be deficient. See, for example, the court's statement to the LRSD school board members in March 1993; Mem. and Order, March 11 , 1996, at 8 (\"The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance 3 I  . ' towards its comitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements although some improvements have been made.''); Transcript June 23, 1995, at 34, 72, 87; July 6, 1995, at 123-24, 176-77, 241. (8.) In view of the foregoing allegations, it is reasonable to characterize the activities of the Joshua Intervenors in responding to the Revised Plan as protecting the extensive relief, previously agreed upon and approved by the courts. However, the relief sought in this motion is appropriate whether or not the court agrees with the foregoing position regarding the proposed Revised Plan. (9.) Assuming for the purposes of this motion the existence of the agreement on future fees found by this court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 25, 1996, at 6-7, the agreement dealt with \"the life of the settlement plans ... \" (Chachkin); see also Mr. Heller (\"in our settlement plans\"). The activities of the Joshua Intervenors to date and in the future, with reference to the Revised Plan which would \"supersede and extinguish\" the LRSD and Interdistrict plans, are outside the parameters of the agreement found to exist by the court. Therefore, the Joshua Intervenors should be permitted to secure fees and costs for such work, and other work related to the Revised Plan, in accord with the standards last discussed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Jenkins v. Missouri, 115 F.3d 554 (1997). (10.) Assuming for the purposes of this motion the existence 4 I' of the agreement on future fees found by this court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 25, 1996, at 6-7, it is appropriate, in the totality of the circumstances of this case, to modify the agreement to delete the limitation on fee awards in the post-judgment phase of this case [see Appeal of the LRSD, 949 F.2d 253, 258 {8th Cir. 1991)], thereby restoring the applicability of the standard discussed in Jenkins v. Missouri. supra. The agreement will have been in force for seven years, during which an extraordinary amount of activity by the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors has been necessary, both in and out of court, much due to the deficient performance of the agents of the LRSD. This deficient performance has often been noted by this court, as evidenced by the examples cited above. See also Transcript, August 19, 1996, at 102. In addition, the continuation of the agreement will undermine the ability of the Joshua Intervenors to adequately represent the class. See the attached Affidavit of John W. Walker. (11.) Considerable work will be necessary in connection with the consideration of the Revised Plan, including responding to voluminous written discovery requests submitted by LRSD to intervenors' representatives. In addition, the LRSD proposal is for the Revised Plan to take effect eight months hence and to be in effect for at least three school years. {12.) This court has the authority to provide for an interim .award of fees and litigation costs, particularly when needed to protect the functioning of the private attorney general concept. 5 --- -- - -----  (13,) With regard to the hourly rates sought for the work of the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, as noted in the prayer for relief below, see the following materials previously filed: John W. Walker -- Fee Petition, Nov. 21, 1995, Aff. of John w. Walker, at 1-7, 12-14; Supplemental Response of the Joshua Intervenors, Aug. 29, 1996, at 7 and Enclosure Two; Robert Pressman -- The Joshua Intervenors Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees (Sept. 1996), Sept. 27, 1996, Declaration of Robert Pressman and Attachments; Joy C. Springer -- Fee Petition, Nov. 21, 1995, Affidavit of Joy C. Springer, at 1-5, 19-20. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the court enter an order: (a.) declaring that the work of the Joshua Intervenors' representatives concerning the Revised Plan is outside the scope of the agreement, previously found to exist by the court, limiting fee awards; (b.) declaring that the agreement of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD is modified, pursuant to the .court's authority to modify a consent decree, by eliminating the limitation on fee awards in the postjudgment stage of this case (with the understanding that the general standard governing fees at the postjudgment stage of a case will then apply); (c.) providing that the LRSD pay the Joshua Intervenors' representatives monthly their reasonable fees and costs, upon submission of adequate documentation, with the court available to rule on any portion of a request considered by the LRSD to be 6 outside the bounds normally governing fee awards; (d.) providing that the fees be paid at the following rates: John w. Walker ($ 250 per hour), Robert Pressman ($ 200 per hour), and Joy c. Springer($ 50 per hour); and (e) providing that the LRSD shall have the right to request the court to reconsider the procedure detailed in (c.) and (d.) after it has been in operation for 12 months; (f) providing such other and\\or different relief as the needs of justice may require. Robert Pressman MA 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 W. Walker AR 64046 W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was sent via United States mail on thi D e 1997 to all counsel of record and sent via counsel for LRSD. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEiVED DtL 1 5 1997 I, John W. Walker, a.ffiant herein, state under oath the following: FLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTrllCT ARKANSAS DEC 1 2 1997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Bv: PLAINTIFF = -~ t:lEP.eLE1:111: DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. A majority of the cases being handled by my office are in the nature of civil rights litigation. 2. The clients in these cases are usually not fee paying clients whereby this office could on a regular basis bill them for our services. There are in such a practice unexpected losses, such as when the entire fee in the Judy Smith case was lost due to the bankruptcy of Harvest Foods. 3 Many of these cases are handled on a contingency fee basis thus causing the office to utilize a substantial amount of the fees collected on other cases to be a basis for support of these cases. 4. In the case ofLRSD, when the Eighth Circuit awarded fees to be paid in the case herein, a substantial amount was paid to the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and to the estate of Wiley Branton, Sr. who had worked on this case for many years. Moreover, a substantial amount of the fee award was expended for expenses incurred in connection with the litigation herein. Furthermore, because of the taxing accounting method for purposes of making payments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA), large amounts of the Little Rock portion of the fee award were paid in that year or the next for federal and state income taxes. S. The costs of the representation of the class are enonnous and involve fees and costs to staff who monitor the case and who assist class members in their efforts to secure or retain rights believed by counsel to be afforded by the settlement. 6. The present scheduled hearing involves considerable preparation time including discovery, costs of extensive depositions from the two superintendents and five major level administrators and response to the substantial set of interrogatories propounded to the plaintiff class. This time and expense involvement comes during the period of the holidays, the end of the year, and the beginning of of the new year, when there is a need for attention, not only to legal presentation, but also to the overall business. It also comes at a time when the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) is launching a serious attack upon the court approved settlement plan and is seeking to be declared unitary .. 7. In order to provide the court with insight into the plaintiff, LRSD's, tactic to overburden an already weakened office (no fees for more than $1,000,000.00 worth of work over a seven year period), the Friday firm proposes to take depositions of our representative simultaneously with our deposing the Superintendent and the staff. A response to that undertaking takes considerable time and effort. It distracts from inquiry into the plan. It also comes at a time when we still have our monitoring obligations which become more time consuming as the semester end approaches, based upon past experiences. Moreover, we are further handicapped because of the fact that we do not have the benefit of the usual Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) reports for the past eighteen (18) months which would reflect the current or ongoing status of the LRSD's implementation of the desegregation plan. 8. The class stands to be adversely affected if our preparation for and participation in the February 2, 1998 hearing is not adequate. As it stands now, although the public belief is to the contrary, a fee drought for seven years from this case leaves us unable to meet the efforts of defense - counsel, supported by unregulated and unlimited funds, in an effort to defeat the very plan which they bugled in 1989 before the Court and the 8th Circuit. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge information and belief. SUBSCRIBED and SWORN before me this ~day of December, 1997.  ()fa a' Poivelx  Ex h; h,t A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF LRSD'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF:S DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Answers to The Joshua Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents states: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name, title, address and telephone number of each and every individual assisting in the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection. This inte~rogatory requests information which is privileged under the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the following persons assisted in the preparation of these answers: Dr. Les Carnine, Christopher Heller and John c. Fendley, Jr. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: In 15 instances in paragraphs II. B. through II. P. of the proposed new plan, the words \"LRSD shall implement programs policies and/or procedures\" followed by a particular subject matter appear. Please identify separately for OEC5S97 7 each ot these 15 paragraphs all programs, policies and procedures  which you maintain ar~ currently implemented and are intended to be encompassed by the reference in the particular subparagraph of Pa~t II. of the proposed plan. In addition, please specify when the implementation of the particular program, policy or procedure began. Lastly, as to each sub-paragraph, please indicate whether work is underway to develop a particular program, policy or procedure to implement the obligation and, if so, describe generally the nature of the initiative(s) and the anticipated completion date(s).  ANSWER: Except as otherwise provided in LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), the obligations set forth in Section II were not intended to encompass any particular implemented. program, policy and procedure currently being As stated in Section XI of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year will be a transition year in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan during the 1998-99 school year. During the transition year, LRSD will be evaluating current programs, policies and procedures and developing new programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in order to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Some of this work has already been completed and is contained in the work team reports submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors in August of this year. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please explain the reason(s) that the proposed plan does not include in the 15 instances referred to in Interrogatory No. 2, or in any instance, the identification of the 11-.\"\"'4..,._jo,I,._ 2  particular programs, policies and procedures to be implemented. (If LRSD believes that there is identification of a particular standard in one or more instances, please answer as to obligations where you agree that there is no identification of a particular standard or program). ANSWER: The Revised Plan includes specific programs, policies and/or procedures with regard to student assignments (Section III \u0026 IV), African-American academic achievement (Section V), equitable allocation of certified personnel (Section VI) and compliance (Section VII). With regard to the remaining obligations, LRSD believes that, in order for the Revised Plan to be successful, the details related to implementation of the Revised Plan must be subject to modification without district court involvement. LRSD firmly believes that flexibility is essential to instilling in the  qistrict a_ sense of responsibility and accountability. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Would the system refuse to support adoption of the revised plan if the plan included the identification of particular programs, policies and/or procedures, or other steps, to implement the \"obligations\" identified in Part II? If so, explain the reason(s) for the system's position. ANSWER: The Revised Plan does identify particular programs, policies and/or procedures. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you agree that as written, there would be compliance with the provisions of II.B. through II.P. of the proposed plan if the system implemented, as to the particular sub-paragraph, programs QI: policies QI: procedures regarding the ~11..a\\lonl~-- 3 I I I I \\  particular matter addressed in the paragraph. If the answer is negative, please explain the basis for the answer. ANSWER: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: As the plan is written, would the court have the authority, in the opinion of the LRSD, to hold a system official (s) (sic) in contempt of court for failure to implement a term of a particular policy of the district, which the LRSD views as encompassed by one of the sub-paragraphs in II.B. through II.P. of the plan, but which is not specified in the plan. If your answer is in the affirmative, please explain the basis f~r the answer. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory calls for the lega1 opinion of counsel for LRSD which is privileged under the attorneyclient privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the district court would have authority to enforce the Revised Plan using its contempt power. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As the plan is written, does any provision of paragraphs II.B. through II.P. of the plan require any action on the part of the LRSD if at a particular school there is substantial racial disparity, atypical in the LRSD system, in the numbers of black students suspended, the numbers of black males placed in special education classes, or the numbers of black students in the gifted and talented program. If the answer is affirmative, please identify the provision(s) which is the basis of the answer. 4 \\ ANSWER: Paragraphs G., H. and I. of Section II state LRSD's I obligations with regard to special education, student discipline and gifted and talented, respectively. Compliance with the~e paragraphs would require LRSD to investigate a racial disparity which varies substantially from what would be expected. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you maintain that the .LRSD complies, currently, with each obligation set forth in Part II. of the plan. If not, please describe in detail the area(s) of noncompliance. ANSWER: The obligations set forth in Section II encompass the core obligations from LRSD' s current desegregation plan. LRSD maintains that it has substantially complied with its current desegregation plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: With respect to II.B. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the proportion black in the relevant labor market and the source of this information, and the proportion black of the work force at present. ANSWER: LRSD intends to rely on federal EEOC statistics for Pulaski County, the State of Arkansas and the nation as a whole to determine the percentage of qualified African-Americans in the relevant labor market. With regard to the proportion of AfricanAmerican teachers and administrators, see Exhibits A, B and C attached. LRSD's noncertified personnel is 73.8% African-American. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: With respect to II.C. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the meaning of the words \"the pool of candidates eligible 5 for promotion\", the proportion black in that pool and the source of  the information, and the proportion black of the persons employed in the category at present.  ANSWER: The \"pool of candidates eligible for promotion\" includes current employees who satisfy all eligibility requirements imposed by law or by the Board for a position. LRSD objects to identifying every position for which every employee is currently eligible for promotion as unduly burdensome. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: With respect to II.D. of the proposed plan, please identify the positions covered within the term \"certified personnel\" and provide as to each category the number of persons currently employed in the LRSD by race . ANSWER: \"Certified personnel\" are LRSD employees who must possess teaching or administrative certificates issued by the State of Arkansas in order to hold their position. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: With respect to II.E. of the proposed plan, please identify any category of certified personnel where the LRSD does not have the right to assign personnel for the good of the system and the basis of the limitation. ANSWER: See Articles XV through XVIII of the PN Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 6 \". INTERROGATORY NO. 13: With respect to II.H. of the proposed e plan, please describe in detail any specific initiative(s) in the LRSD a.t present, whether involving particular personnel, or standards, designed to guard against black students' receiving discipline for conduct for which white students are not disciplined, black students' receiving discipline for trivial matters, and/or black students' receiving more severe discipline than white students for similar conduct. ANSWER: LRSD expects all of its students, regardless of race or socioeconomic background, to comply with the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. If a student fails to comply, the student will be disciplined as provided in the Handbook. Discipline information including the race of the student, the race of the administrator, the nature of the offense and the sanction imposed is compiled by the schools and maintained by LRSD. LRSD's Associate Superintendent for information in an attempt discrimination. Student Discipline reviews this to identify possible racial INTERROGATORY NO. 14: With respect to II.I. of the proposed plan, please define, with specificity, the word \"qualified,\" as it applies to each of the three areas discussed in the obligation; namely \"extracurricular activities\", \"advanced placement courses\", and \"gifted and talented\" programs. ANSWER: The phrase \"qualified African-American students\" means African-American students who satisfy the eligibility criteria for an activity or program. For many activities and 7  programs, there are eligibility criteria other than student interest. INTERROGATORY NO, 15: With respect to II.J. of the propos~d plan, does LRSD agree that as written the system would be in compliance with this provision if the system continued to implement any two programs with its federal Title I monies to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. If not, lease (sic) explain the basis for the disagreement. ANSWER: No. LRSD must also implement the programs, policies and/or procedures set forth in Section V of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: With respect to II.L. of the proposed plan, please define the terms \"equitable allocation,\" \"technological resources,\" and \"educational resources.\" Also, please identify any data source allowing a determination of whether these resources are equitably allocated to LRSD schools at present. ANSWER: The phrase \"equitable allocation\" means to allocate based on need and without bias or favoritism. The term \"technological resources\" means up-to-date computer and information technology. The term \"educational resources\" includes teachers, teacher aides, equipment and supplies. With regard to a data source for determing whether these resources are currently equitably allocated, see the technology work team report, the individual school profiles and the LRSD budget. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: With respect to II.M. of the proposed plan, please define the term \"equitable\" and identify the matters encompassed in the terms \"maintenance and repair.\" In addition, 8 ., . please identify any source of data available to -ascertain compliance with this obligation on a school-by-school basis. ANSWER: The term \"equitable\" means based on need and witho~t bias or favoritism. The terms \"maintenance and repair\" include the routine upkeep of the building and grounds and the repair or replacement of elements of the building and grounds which are no longer functional. LRSD maintains records which would indicate maintenance requests submitted by schools, the priority assigned to those requests and when and if those requests were acted upon. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: With respect to II.N. of the proposed plan, please identify any specific initiatives currently undertaken in the LRSD to ascertain whether or not guidance or counseling services provided to African-American students involve steering to a restricted range of courses and/or postsecondary educational opportunities. ANSWER: LRSD recognizes that African-American students are underrepresented in upper-level courses and has implemented strategies to address that issue. Specifically with regard to guidance and counseling services, LRSD has requested a National Science Foundation grant to fund training modeled after TESA and EQUALS to assist counselors in motivating African-American students to take the courses necessary to later be successful in upper-level science and math courses. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: With respect to II.O. of the proposed plan, does LRSD maintain that this subparagraph adds anything to 9 other obligations of the plan. If so, please describe with specificity what it adds. ANSWER: Yes. The obligations in Section II should be interpreted consistent with Paragraph o. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: With respect to II. P. of the proposed plan, please set forth the number of persons the LRSD plans to assign on a full-time basis to compliance/monitoring activities and the categories of positions to be staffed. In addition, please describe any steps to insure that the make-up of the staff includes a substantial number of African-American persons and any role which LRSD is willing to give the representative of the Joshua Intervenors in the selection of this staff. ANSWER: These decisions have not yet been made. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: With respect to III. A. 1. of the proposed plan, please identify any document , and any existing analysis stored in any other manner projecting school make-up by race if the steps described in this subparagraph are implemented. If any such data does not currently exist, please describe how such a projection could be done with data and resources available to the LRSO. ANSWER: LRSD is currently working with Edulog software to project school make-up under scenarios consistent with Section III of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: With respect to III. B. I.-5 of the proposed plan, please: (i) identify all written standards governing these transfers and (ii) describe any unwritten practices governing flllaN\"\"-1'\"711 ....... ,...._ 10 one or more of these transfers. (iii) In addition, please define the concepts of \"capacity limitations\" and \"reasonable requirement\" identifying any designations of schools capacities to be utilized. (iv) In addition, please explain the language \"a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student\" by reference to the circumstances of youth receiving such transfers in 1997-98 and explain who does and who would decide that the requisite circumstances exist. (v) Lastly, please identify the numbers of students by race utilizing each category of such transfers in 1997-98. ANSWER: (i) No additional standards have been developed beyond what is contain in the Revised Plan. (ii) None. (iii) A school's capacity is a function of the physical plant and the educational programs being implemented at a school. At this time, LRSD is using the school capacity numbers attached hereto as Exhibit E. The \"reasonable requirements\" described in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of Section III.B. relate to procedural requirements which may be imposed by LRSD to ensure that student assignment occurs in a timely and efficient manner. ( iv) Special circumstances transfers as described by the Revised Plan are currently handled through an appeals committee composed of five members with individual members selected by the LRSD Board of Directors, the Biracial Committee, the PTA Council 11 and the Little Rock CTA. The committee reviews requests for transfers based on geographic isolation, racial isolation, medical hardship and other extenuating circumstances. This committee was established by the Tri-District plan and has been continued by LRSD under its current plan. (v) Records concerning transfers will be made available upon request at a time and date mutually agreed to by counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: With respect to III. E. of the proposed plan, please identify any potential sites for the school in west Little Rock, including any sites set forth in any study. In addition, please state whether the LRSD envisions the court's approving the site prior to its final approval. ANSWER: No potential site has been identified. Although LRSD anticipates keeping both the court and the parties informed about the site selection process, the site would not have to be approved by the court except as provided in Section IX.B. of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: With respect to IV.E. of the proposed plan, please describe any existing agreements, standards, and practices relating to cooperative efforts of the LRSD and PCSSD. ANSWER: See Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: With respect to V.B. and C. of the proposed plan, please (i) identify the author or authors of the provisions, committees and entities, designating the provision or provisions associated with each such author; ( ii) identify any document(s) providing further explanation of any provision(s) of r:--~Jooh.- 12  the proposal; (iii) regarding parts B.l.a., B.2.a., and B.J.a., I please identify any standards describing the level of competency envisioned in each instance and how it would be assessed; is developing the standards and the general timelines for that effort; and (iv) regarding these three parts of the plan, please state whether LRSD plans to have students satisfy a test requirement prior to moving to the next grade; if the matter is not decided, but such a requirement remains an option, please indicate. ANSWER: See curriculum work team report. INTE "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1693","title":"Court filings: District Court, interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-12-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1693"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["49 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. - 33 and 34: GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean Joshua or any person acting on Joshua's behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm, associaiion, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C} \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of f:\\homolfendlcy~rod-jooh.m. information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, financial statements and records. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; f:\\homolfcnd l.:yU ...ildoo-jcoh..- 2 (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the persons name, business and residence address(es); and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such person known or reasonably believed by you to have present possession, custody, or control thereof, and a brief description of the subject matter thereof, all with sufficient particularity to request its production under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (iii) As to a communication, shall mean the date of the communication, the type of communication (telephone conversation, meeting, etc.), the place where the communication took place, the identity of the person who made the communication, the identity of each person who received the communication, and of each person present when it was made and the subject matter discussed; (F) \"Pertaining to\" Shall mean constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, 3 conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified; (G) To \"describe in detail\" Shall mean to provide with respect to any act, occurrence, transaction, event, statement, communication or conduct (hereinafter collectively, \"act\") all facts pertaining to any such act known to the person answering after due inquiry, including but not limited to a description of each act, the d~te, the location, and the identify of each person involved; (H) \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope; (I) \"Revised Plan\" shall mean LRSD Revised Desegregation - and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997; (J) \"current plan\" shall mean the LRSD Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992; all page and line citations to the current plan shall refer to current plan as set forth in LRSD's \"Desegregation Tool Kit,\" a copy of which is enclosed; (K) \"Interdistrict Plan\" shall mean the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992; all page and line citations to the Interdistrict Plan shall refer to Interdistrict Plan as set forth in LRSD's \"Desegregation Tool Kit,\" a copy of which is enclosed; The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past l:lhomolfcndleyUn,d'dco-jooh.Ull 4 tense includes the presence tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set for the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of responses to these interrogatories and requests for production of documents . INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify all persons who you intend to call as a lay witness at the hearing on the Revised Plan . INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who you - intend to call as an expert witness at the hearing on the Revised Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce a written report signed by each expert witness identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 3 which contains a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be paid for his testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which the witness f:lhcmo\\kndieyUrod\\deo-jcoh.w 5 has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four years. ' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all items, th~ngs and documents which you intend to introduce as an exhibit at the hearing on the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to student assignments? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 4 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to faculty? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 5 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to staff? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 6 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to transportation? If so, describe in detail f:lhcmo\\fcndlcyUnod\\doo-joah.inl 6 the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 7 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to extra-curricular activities? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 8 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Do you contend that LRSD is not unitary with regard to facilities? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 9 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Early Childhood Education component (pp. 4-19) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 10 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Special Programs component (pp. 20-27) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the f:\\homolfcrdlcyUr,d\\doe-j\u003c\u003eoh ... 7 basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 11 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the School Operations component (pp. 28-47) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 12 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Program for Accelerated Learning/Academic Support Programs (pp. 48-57) of the current - plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 13 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Gifted Education component (pp. 58-62) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 14 above. f:lhomolfcndlcyllrod'doo-jooh.u,t 8 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Multicultural Curriculum component (pp. 63-80) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 15 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Focused Activities component (pp. 81-85) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 16 above. - INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Parkview Science Magnet School component (pp. 86-92) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 17 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the McClellan Community School component (pp. 93-94) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. f:\\homclfcndleyllnd'dcojooh.mi 9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 18 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Recruitment of Private School students component (p. 95) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . 18: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 19 above. INTERROGATORY NO . 20: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Federal Programs component (pp. 96-97) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 20 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Vocational Education component (pp. 98-99) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and i dentify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 21 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Library Media Services component (pp. 106-10) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the f:\\homc\\/erdlcyUnd'\u003cbjooh.inl 10 basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 22 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Special Education component {pp. 111-23) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 23 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Staff Development component {pp. 20-27) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 24 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Support Services component (pp. 129-30) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 25 above. f:lhomo\\kmlcyllrodldcojooh.n 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Parent Involvement/Community Linkages component (pp. 131-38) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 26 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Student Assignments component (pp. 139-44) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 27 above. - INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the New Futures For Little Rock component (p. 145) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 28 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Facilities component (pp. 146- 148) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. lc\\home\\fcndlcyllnodldoejooh.inl 12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 29 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Academic Programs and Curriculum Development component (pp. 152-70) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 30 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Operations component (pp. 171~189} of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30: Please produce all documents . identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 31 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Staffing component (pp. 190-204) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 32 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Parent f:\\hamolfendleyllradldeo-jooh.w 13 Involvement component (pp. 205-14) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 33 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Incentive School Parent Recruitment (pp. 215-23) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 34 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Educational Equity Monitoring component (pp. 224-26) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 35 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Computerized Transportation System component (pp. 227-29) of the current plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 36 above. l:\\hamollordlcyllrtd\\doo-Jo,h.bo 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Introduction component (pp. 1-2) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 37 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Overview component (pp. 3-7) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 38 above. - INTERROGATORY NO. 39: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the student Choices and Options component (pp. 8-12) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 39 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Summer School component (pp. 13- 20) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. f:\\homclfc.-dlcyUnid'dcojcob.inl 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 40 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Staff Development component (pp. 21-22) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 41 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the School Operations component (pp. 23-34) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 42 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Special Education component (pp. 35-53) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 43 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Guidance and Counseling Program component (pp. 54-55) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe f:lhom\u003c\\fcrdlcylll'ld'd.,o-jooh.n 16 in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all - facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 44 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 45: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Parental Involvement/Community Linkages component (pp. 56-58) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 45 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the Public Relations component (pp. i-2) of the Interdistrict Plan? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for this contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 46 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Do you contend that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with any order of the District Court pertaining to the current plan or Interdistrict Plan? If so, identify the order of the district court, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 47 above. r:lhorno1ren:11cy11nw1-.i..-jooh.in 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 48: Please describe .in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1992-93 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 48 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1993-94 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 49 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1994-95 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 50 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1995-96 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . . 50: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 51 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1996-97 school year, including the f:lhomolfcndloyllndldco-jo,h.in 18 identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 52 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Please describe in detail Joshua's monitoring of LRSD during the 1997-98 school year, including the identity of all Joshua monitors, and identify all documents pertaining to such monitoring. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 53 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Please identify all persons not currently employed by LRSD known to you to have personal knowledge of LRSD's failure to comply with any obligation under either the current plan or the Interdistrict Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Please identify all of your communications with persons currently employed by LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with either the current plan or the Interdistrict Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 53: Please produce all documents pertaining to the communications identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 55 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in academic achievement? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. f:lhcmclfcndlcyllnd'dcejooh.inl 19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 56 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in student discipline? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 57 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in special education? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 58 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in the gifted and talented program? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO . 57: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 59 above . INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Do you contend that either current or past discrimination by LRSD is a proximate cause of the current racial disparity in participation in honors and advanced f:lhome\\fc,d loyllrodldco-jcoh.ir\u003c 20 placement courses? If so, describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 60 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Do you believe that continued implementation of the current plan and the Interdistrict Plan would result in LRSD achieving unitary status? If so, please identify when LRSD would be unitary and describe in detail the basis(es) for your response. If not, please describe in detail why and identify those aspects of school operations which would not be unitary. INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Please identify by page number(s) the components of the current plan and Interdistrict Plan which you believe should be modified , and for each component identified, please: a. describe in detail why you believe the component should be modified; b. identify all facts and documents which support your belief that the component should be modified; c. describe in detail the program, policy or procedure which you believe should be substituted for the component; and, d. identify all facts and documents which support your belief that the program, policy or procedure described inc. above should be substituted for the component . f:lhomclfcndlcyll..d\\dco-jooh. in. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 62 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: Please identify by page number(s) those components of the current plan and Interdistrict Plan which you contend should be continued under the Revised Plan, and with regard to each component identified, please describe in detail the basis(es) for your contention and identify all facts and documents which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 63 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: Do you agree with the recommendations 9on~ained in the Student Assignment Work Team report? If not, please identify each recommendation with which you disagree, describe in detail the basis(es) for your disagreement and identi fy all facts and documents which support your position. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 64 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: Do you agree with the recommendations contained in the Curriculum Work Team report? If not, please identify each recommendation with which you disagree, describe in detail the basis(es) for your disagreement and identify all facts and documents which support your position. !:\\homo\\fcndlcy\\l..dldco-jooh.inl 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62: Please produce all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 65 above. INTERROGATORY NO. 66: Do you agree with the recommendations contained in the Technology Work Team report? If not, please identify each recommendation with which you disagree, describe in detail the basis(es) for your disagreement and identify all facts and documents which support your position. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63: Please produce -all documents identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 66 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1691","title":"Court filings: District Court, plaintiff Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) answers to the Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-12-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, plaintiff Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) answers to the Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1691"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["155 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. vs. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS :~~~~I COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTRECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEC ~ 1997 OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF LRSD, s AKiii~Ti MONITORING INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") for its Answers to The Joshua Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents states: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name, title, address and telephone number of each and every individual assisting in the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory requests information which is privileged under the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the following persons assisted in the preparation of these answers: Dr. Les Carnine, Christopher Heller and John c. Fendley, Jr. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: In 15 instances in paragraphs II. B. through II. P. of the proposed new plan, the words \"LRSD shall implement programs policies and/or procedures\" followed by a particular subject matter appear. Please identify separately for l:lhomollct'd lcy\\lrod'dco-joob.ra  ' . each of these 15 paragraphs all programs, policies and procedures - which you maintain are currently implemented and are intended to be encompassed by the reference in the particular subparagraph of Part II. of the proposed plan. In addition, please specify when the implementation of the particular program, policy or procedure began. Lastly, as to each sub-paragraph, please indicate whether work is underway to develop a particular program, policy or procedure to implement the obligation and, if so, describe generally the nature of the initiative(s) and the anticipated completion date(s). ANSWER: Except as otherwise provided in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"), the obligations set forth in Section II were not intended to encompass any particular program, policy and procedure currently being implemented. As stated in Section XI of the Revised Plan, the 1997-98 school year will be a transition year in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan during the 1998-99 school year. During the transition year, LRSD will be evaluating current programs, policies and procedures and developing new programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in order to meet its obligations under the Revised Plan. Some of this work has already been completed and is contained in the work team reports submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors in August of this year. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please explain the reason(s) that the proposed plan does not include in the 15 instances referred to in Interrogatory No. 2, or in any instance, the identification of the l:lh:\u003en-cllcndlcylll'ld'doo-jooh.,.. 2 particular programs, policies and procedures to be implemented. (If LRSD believes that there is identification of a particular standard in one or more instances, please answer as to obligations where you agree that there is no identification of a particular standard or program). ANSWER: The Revised Plan includes specific programs, policies and/or procedures with regard to student assignments (Section III \u0026 IV), African-American academic achievement (Section V), equitable allocation of certified personnel (Section VI) and compliance (Section VII). With regard to the remaining obligations, LRSD believes that, in order for the Revised Plan to be successful, the details related to implementation of the Revised Plan must be subject to modification without district court involvement. LRSD firmly believes that flexibility is essential to instilling in the - qistrict a sense of responsibility and accountability. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Would the system refuse to support adoption of the revised plan if the plan included the identification of particular programs, policies and/or procedures, or other steps, to implement the \"obligations\" identified in Part II? If so, explain the reason(s) for the system's pos i tion. ANSWER: The Revised Plan does identify particular programs, policies and/or procedures. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Do you agree that as written, there would be compliance with the provisions of II.B. through II.P. of the proposed plan if the system implemented, as to the particular sub-paragraph, programs or policies or procedures regarding the r:lhom,lr\u003cndlcyllr\u003e\u003cl'dca-jah.ra 3 particular matter addressed in the paragraph. If the answer is negative, please explain the basis for the answer. ANSWER: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: As the plan is written, would the court have the authority, in the opinion of the LRSD, to hold a system official (s) (sic] in contempt of court for failure to implement a term of a particular policy of the district, which the LRSD views as encompassed by one of the sub-paragraphs in II.B. through II.P. of the plan, but which is not specified in the plan. If your answer is in the affirmative, please explain the basis for the answer. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory calls for the legal opinion of counsel for LRSD which is privileged under the attorneyclient privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the district court would have authority to enforce the Revised Plan using its contempt power. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: As the plan is written, does any provision of paragraphs II.B. through II.P. of the plan require any action on the part of the LRSD if at a particular school there is substantial racial disparity, atypical in the LRSD system, in the numbers of black students suspended, the numbers of black males placed in special education classes, or the numbers of black students in the gifted and talented program. If the answer is affirmative, please identify the provision(s) which is the basis of the answer. (:\\homolfcndlcyllndldoojooh.,.. 4 ANSWER: Paragraphs G., H. and I. of Section II state LRSD's obligations with regard to special education, student discipline and gifted and talented, respectively. Compliance with these paragraphs would require LRSD to investigate a racial disparity which varies substantially from what would be expected. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Do you maintain that the .LRSD complies, currently, with each obligation set forth in Part II. of the plan. If not, please describe in detail the area(s) of noncompliance. ANSWER: The obligations set forth in Section II encompass the core obligations from LRSD' s current desegregation plan. LRSD maintains that it has substantially complied with its current desegregation plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: With respect to II.B. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the proportion black in the relevant labor market and the source of this information, and the proportion black of the work force at present. ANSWER: LRSD intends to rely on federal EEOC statistics for Pulaski County, the State of Arkansas and the nation as a whole to determine the percentage of qualified African-Americans in the relevant labor market. With regard to the proportion of AfricanAmerican teachers and administrators, see Exhibits A, B and C attached. LRSD' s noncertified personnel is 73. 8% African-American. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: With respect to II.C. of the proposed plan, please identify as to each category of positions to which it applies, the meaning of the words \"the pool of candidates eligible f:lhomolfcndlcyllnd'dc.-jc,oh.1W 5 for promotion\", the proportion black in that pool and the source of the information, and the proportion black of the persons employed in the category at present. ANSWER: The \"pool of candidates eligible for promotion\" includes current employees who satisfy all eligibility requirements imposed by law or by the Board for a position. LRSD objects to identifying every position for which every employee is currently eligible for promotion as unduly burdensome. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: With respect to II.D. of the proposed plan, please identify the positions covered within the term \"certified personnel\" and provide as to each category the number of persons currently employed in the LRSD by race. ANSWER: \"Certified personnel\" are LRSD employees who must possess teaching or administrative certificates issued by the State of Arkansas in order to hold their position. With regard to the percentage of African-Americans currently employed by LRSD, see Answer to Interrogatory No. 9. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: With respect to II.E. of the proposed plan, please identify any category of certified personnel where the LRSD does not have the right to assign personnel for the good of the system and the basis of the limitation. ANSWER: See Articles XV through XVIII of the PN Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. r:lhomellcndlcyUrld'da-jooh.,a 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I INTERROGATORY NO. 13: With respect to II.H. of the proposed plan, please describe in detail any specific initiative(s) in the LRSD at present, whether involving particular personnel, or standards, designed to guard against black students' receiving discipline for conduct for which white students are not disciplined, black students' receiving discipline for trivial matters, and/or black students' receiving more severe discipline than white students for similar conduct. ANSWER: LRSD expects all of its students, regardless of race or socioeconomic background, to comply with the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. If a student fails to comply, the student will be disciplined as provided in the Handbook. Discipline information including the race of the student, the race of the administrator, the nature of the offense and the sanction imposed is compiled by the schools and maintained by LRSD. LRSD's Associate Superintendent for Student Discipline reviews this information in an attempt to identify possible racial discrimination. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: With respect to II.I. of the proposed plan, please define, with specificity, the word \"qualified,\" as it applies to each of the three areas discussed in the obligation, namely \"extracurricular activities\", \"advanced placement courses\", and \"gifted and talented\" programs. ANSWER: The phrase \"qualified African-American students\" means African-American students who satisfy the eligibility criteria for an activity or program. For many activities and (:\\hoorcll'endlcyll..dldoo-jolh.ra 7 programs, there are eligibility criteria other than student interest. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: With respect to II.J. of the proposed plan, does LRSD agree that as written the system would be in compliance with this provision if the system continued to implement any two programs with its federal Title I monies to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. If not, lease (sic) explain the basis for the disagreement. ANSWER: No. LRSD must also implement the programs, policies and/or procedures set forth in Section V of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: With respect to II.L. of the proposed plan, please define the terms \"equitable allocation,\" \"technological resources,\" and \"educational resources.\" Also, please identify any data source allowing a determination of whether these resources are equitably allocated to LRSD schools at present. ANSWER: The phrase \"equitable allocation\" means to allocate based on need and without bias or favoritism. The term \"technological resources\" means up-to-date computer and information technology. The term \"educational resources'' includes teachers, teacher aides, equipment and supplies. With regard to a data source for determing whether these resources are currently equitably allocated, see the technology work team report, the individual school profiles and the LRSD budget. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: With respect to II.M. of the proposed plan, please define the term \"equitable\" and identify the matters encompassed in the terms \"maintenance and repair.\" In addition, /:lhomo,1/crdlcylltod'doo-jch.,.. 8 please identify any source of data available to ascertain compliance with this obligation on a school-by-school basis. ANSWER: The term \"equitable\" means based on need and without bias or favoritism. The terms \"maintenance and repair\" include the routine upkeep of the building and grounds and the repair or replacement of elements of the building and grounds which are no longer functional. LRSD maintains records which would indicate maintenance requests submitted by schools, the priority assigned to those requests and when and if those requests were acted upon. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: With respect to II.N. of the proposed plan, please identify any specific initiatives currently undertaken in the LRSD to ascertain whether or not guidance or counseling services provided to African-American students involve steering to a restricted range of courses and/or postsecondary educational opportunities. ANSWER: LRSD recognizes that African-American students are underrepresented in upper-level courses and has implemented strategies to address that issue. Specifically with regard to guidance and counseling services, LRSD has requested a National Science Foundation grant to fund training modeled after TESA and EQUALS to assist counselors in motivating African-American students to take the courses necessary to later be successful in upper-level science and math courses. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: With respect to II.O. of the proposed plan, does LRSD maintain that this subparagraph adds anything to r:\"\"'-lfcndley~r,d\\deo-jcoh.ra 9 other obligations of the plan. If so, please describe with specificity what it adds. ANSWER: Yes. The obligations in Section II should be interpreted consistent with Paragraph 0. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: With respect to II. P. of the proposed plan, please set forth the number of persons the LRSD plans to assign on a full-time basis to compliance/monitoring activities and the categories of positions to be staffed. In addition, please describe any steps to insure that the make-up of the staff includes a substantial number of African-American persons and any role which LRSD is willing to give the representative of the Joshua Intervenors in the selection of this staff. ANSWER: These decisions have not yet been made. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: With respect to III. A. 1. of the proposed plan, please identify any document and any existing analysis stored in any other manner projecting school make-up by race if the steps described in this subparagraph are implemented. If any such data does not currently exist, please describe how such a projection could be done with data and resources available to the LRSD. ANSWER: LRSD is currently working with Edulog software to project school make-up under scenarios consistent with Section III of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: With respect to III.B. I . -5 of the proposed plan, please: (i) identify all written standards governing these transfers and (ii) describe any unwritten practices governing l:ll,anollcndlcy\\Jnd'du-jooh.,a 10 one or more of these transfers. (iii) In addition, please define the concepts of \"capacity limitations\" and \"reasonable requirement\" identifying any designations of schools capacities to be utilized. (iv) In addition, please explain the language \"a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student\" by reference to the circumstances of youth receiving such transfers in 1997-98 and explain who does and who would decide that the requisite circumstances exist. (v) Lastly, please identify the numbers of students by race utilizing each category of such transfers in 1997-98. ANSWER: (i) No additional standards have been developed beyond what is contain in the Revised Plan. (ii) None. (iii) A school's capacity is a function of the physical plant and the educational programs being implemented at a school . At this time, LRSD is using the school capacity numbers attached hereto as Exhibit E. The \"reasonable requirements\" described in subparagraphs 1 through 5 of Section III.B. relate to procedural requirements which may be imposed by LRSD to ensure that student assignment occurs in a timely and efficient manner. (iv) Special circumstances transfers as described by the Revised Plan are currently handled through an appeals committee composed of five members with individual members selected by the LRSD Board of Directors, the Biracial Committee, the PTA Council r:lhomo\\fendlcyUnod'dc.-jooh.,a 11 and the Little Rock CTA. The committee reviews requests for transfers based on geographic isolation, racial isolation, medical hardship and other extenuating circumstances. This committee was established by the Tri-District plan and has been continued by LRSD under its current plan. (v) Records concerning transfers will be made available upon request at a time and date mutually agreed to by counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: With respect to III. E. of the proposed plan, please identify any potential sites for the school in west Little Rock, including any sites set forth in any study. In addition, please state whether the LRSD envisions the court's approving the site prior to its final approval. ANSWER: No potential site has been identified. Although LRSD anticipates keeping both the court and the parties informed about the site selection process, the site would not have to be approved by the court except as provided in Section IX.B. of the Revised Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: With respect to IV.E. of the proposed plan, please describe any existing agreements, standards, and practices relating to cooperative efforts of the LRSD and PCSSD. ANSWER: See Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: With respect to V.B. and C. of the proposed plan, please (i) identify the author or authors of the provisions, committees and entities, designating the provision or provisions associated with each such author; ( ii) identify any document(s) providing further explanation of any provision(s) of f:lhomo\\fcndlcyllrod\\doo-jooh.,_ 12 the proposal; (iii) regarding parts B.l.a., B.2.a., and B.3.a., please identify any standards describing the level of competency envisioned in each instance and how it would be assessed; is developing the standards and the general timelines for that effort; and (iv) regarding these three parts of the plan, please state whether LRSD plans to have students satisfy a test requirement prior to moving to the next grade; if the matter is not decided, but such a requirement remains an option, please indicate. ANSWER: See curriculum work team report. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: With respect to V.C.4. of the proposed plan, what is the reason for evaluating Algebra I placement procedures and what would be done with the evaluation results. ANSWER: See curriculum work team report. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: With respect to V.D. of the proposed plan, please identify any standards for use of the \"additional funding.\" If none currently exist, how would standards be developed and in what time period. Lastly, what is the position of the LRSD regarding the use of some funds to pay area college students to tutor in these schools, during and outside the regular school day, on a one-to-one basis. ANSWER: See incentive school work team report and incentive school individual school plans. LRSD has not taken a position on the use of some funds to pay area college students to tutor in the incentive schools. INTERROGATORY NO. 28 : With respect to V.F. of the proposed plan, please identify any standards for this effort and provide a (:lhonwlfcrdlcyUtwd'-\"jcoh.- 13 definition of the language \"parental and community relations linkage system.\" ANSWER: See community links work team report. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: With respect to V.I. of the proposed plan, please explain why the title and the first paragraph apply to teachers and the next two paragraphs apply to certified personnel. As to V.B., what person or persons would decide when the desegregative impact would be outweighed. ANSWER: All of Section VI applies to certified personnel. The superintendent or his designee would decide when the desegregative impact would be outweighed by the educational benefit from allowing a teacher to remain in his or her present assignment or to transfer to another assignment. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 0: With respect to Part VII. of the proposed plan, please identify all documents alluded to in this part, including but not limited to \"compliance standards and procedures\", and/or further explanatory of the meaning of this part. ANSWER: The compliance standards and procedures have not yet been developed. Section VII is based on the requirements for an effective corporate integrity program under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines 8Al.2. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: What if any impact would the court's approval of the proposed plan, or a modified version, have on the life of the agreement which LRSD maintains was made regarding fee payments to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors after the payment of (:lhomo\\lcrdlcyllnd'da,-jo,11.,_ 14 the amount described in the Settlement Agreement. If the LRSD view is that the agreement would continue in force, please set forth the terms of the agreement on which LRSD relies and explain how the agreement could continue in view of the terms of the agreement asserted by the LRSD. ANSWER: The fee agreement was part of the settlement agreement which is not being modified by the Revised Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please provide a copy of each document which you have identified in responding to interrogatories numbered 2 through 30. RESPONSE: LRSD will make the documents identified herein available for inspection upon request at a time and date mutually agreed to by counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: Do you consider these interrogatories and req~est for documents as continuing and agree to supplement your answers as required by the Court's order of October 23, 1997? ANSWER: LRSD will comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the orders of the district court. r:\\homolfc..dlcy\\lr,d\\dao-_jool,.ra 15 VERIFICATION STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) ss. COUNTY OF PULASKI) I, Dr. Leslie V. Carnine, state under oath that I am the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, that the foregoing answers have been prepared from information gathered from personnel and records of the District, that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I am authorized to execute this document on behalf of the District. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY:~ DR. LESIEV.CARNINE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public, on this day of December, 1997. r:lhomolfcndl,:yllnodldco-jooh.,.. Christopher J. Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Little Rock School District BY: 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of December, 1997. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 ~ittle Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 f:'llornolfcndlcyUl'ICl'da-jooll.,.. 17 Elementary Teachers - 1993 , 17 i . 4 t---15--- --25.o ---- -- -1L2% - 18.2% -18.0% 3 Total ---  246 r 434  ...  i .f i IC PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT A Elementary Teachers - 1994 --- -- 18 - --- -- --- . 17 191)% -L5.3% . '---- --  61 . 5 % - -27. 2% - ' 0 Elementary Teachers - 1995 -,_,-----+--.,.,----+---- --------- ------ -- . 0 . 0 Elementary Teachers - 1996 I I ;- -r-- -- 56.3% -- ....... 22. I%- 2 12 4 Elementary Teachers - 1997 3 - -  9 r6   60. o -1 24.2 - 12 : \\  -- 2r- - 46.2% - --1 OA% - Elementary Teachers - 1998 i ! 3 ........... - 51.3% - .. 15.5% -- Secondary Teachers -1993 ALTLRN 4 2 66.7% CENTRAL 21 49 30.0% CLOVERDALE 2 30 6.3% DUNBAR 8 23 25.8% FAIR 7 29 19.4% FOREST HEIGHTS 9 20 31.0% HALL 9 35 20.5% HENDERSON 9 26 25.7% MABELVALE 3 20 13.0% MANNM/S 13 22 37.1% MCCLELLAN 12 24 33.3% PARK.VIEW 9 28 24.3% PULASKI HEIGHTS 4 28 12.5% SOUTHWEST 15 15 50.0% 93 Total 125 351 26.3% Secondary Teachers - 1994 ALTLRN 4 2 66.7% CENTRAL 25 48 34.2% CLOVERDALE 5 30 14.3% DUNBAR 8 25 24.2% FAIR 8 28 22.2% FOREST HEIGHTS 9 19 32.1% HALL 10 34 22.7% HENDERSON 8 30 21.1% MABELVALE 6 21 22.2% MANNM/S 13 25 34.2% MCCLELLAN 12 27 30.8% PARKVIEW 11 28 28.2% PULASKI HEIGHTS 4 29 12.1% SOUTHWEST 15 15 50.0% 94 Total 138 361 27.6% 40.4% 3.7% -20.0% -.5% -6.8% 4.8% -5.8% -.5% -13.2% 10.9% 7.1% -1.9% -13.8% 23.7% er;- -~=~ ... ;J~mlg,\u0026;? ',~zj~g,~~ 39.0% 6.6% -13.4% -3.4% -5.4% 4.5% -4.9% -6.6% -5.4% 6.6% 3.1% .5% -15.5% 22.3% PLAINTIFF'S 1 EXHIBIT s :5 J Secondary Teachers - 1995 Scn\"o' ~~- '~-~ . - ,._, . ::;;:. , . ..  - .. ---: -  ...,  - ~~ 1:eme..\" r:i-,i ..~... ~ ~ n,_i.c,..a, .i ,,f~ :-.-:..:.P.. ~e,rc\" ent,a_.g e , ' . . -  , ~- , . . . ~.  .-~-- -.: -~:~1:-.-- : .r.:. :':\"'=:\" -.::-  .. :- ! .. -  . ~  . ;- -}~- ;..,,f.,.   _; ,  ~ capj ~ ;~~~~~c.AA,:;::,.:~ ~:...: Y.anance ;. ALTLRN 4 2 66.7% 36.0% CENTRAL 24 42 36.4% 5.7% CLOVERDALE 5 24 17.2% -13.4% DUNBAR 10 20 33.3% 2.6% FAIR 13 23 36.1% 5.4% FOREST HEIGHTS 12 19 38.7% 8.0% HALL 10 34 22.7% -8.0% HENDERSON 10 26 27.8% -2.9% MABELVALE 5 21 19.2% -11.5% MANNM/S 10 26 27.8% -2.9% MCCLELLAN 12 24 33.3% 2.6% PARK.VIEW 10 28 26.3% -4.4% PULASKI HEIGHTS 7 29 19.4% -11.2% SOUIBWEST 15 14 51.7% 21.0% 95 Total 147 332 30.7% Secondary Teachers - 1996 s~il~l~l~fillE1~ ~JH~tt~~,r.:i ~~~pt~~!~: ALT LRN ' 4 2 66.7% 33.1% CENTRAL 23 41 35.9% 2.4% CLOVERDALE 11 20 35.5% 2.0% DUNBAR 15 18 45.5% 11.9% FAIR 15 25 37.5% 4.0% FOREST HEIGHTS 12 20 37.5% 4.0% HALL 10 36 21.7% -11.8% HENDERSON 19 20 48.7% 15.2% MABELVALE 5 22 18.5% -15.0% MANNM/S 12 25 32.4% -1.1% MCCLELLAN 10 32 23.8% -9.7% PARK.VIEW 12 29 29.3% -4.3% PULASKI HEIGHTS 6 32 15.8% -17.7% SOUTHWEST 15 13 53.6% 20.0% 96 Total 169 335 33 .5% Secondary Teachers - 1997  ~=ifl ~\"I- m11me'rc'efiliifff ' ..- .. ~Rercenta e, . CENTRAL 24 44 35.3% .4% CLOVERDALE 12 19 38.7% 3.8% DUNBAR 14 21 40.0% 5.1% FAIR 14 20 41.2% 6.3% FOREST HEIGHTS 11 18 37.9% 3.1% HALL 11 33 25.0% -9.9% HEDERSON 17 19 47.2% 12.4% MABELVALE 5 20 20.0% -14.9% MANNM/S 12 25 32.4% -2.4% MCCLELLAN 13 30 30.2% -4.6% PARK.VIEW 14 28 33.3% -1.5% PULASKI HEIGHTS 4 35 10.3% -24.6% SOUTHWEST 19 10 65.5% 30.6% 97 Total 174 325 34.9% Secondary Teachers - 1998 . :.:f.i~:~~~~17:(f-;~.;BpiJ .~ --~~:n . caira ' ~- ' ~caw an\"'---.; ~ercefftre.~canl ~ :r.ercen~ge.:. ' Sclioolf:f:~,:t~\".. .~ _,; , aniei ~~-~ ~ :.,.-.:~} ~:~~,~J.;: ~- ; --:~~4t.lm.;i -~-~~~- i~~~.~ ;:i;. ~3:~e;;, ALTLRN ' 2 5 28.6% -7.4% CENTRAL 27 48 36:0% .0% CLOVERDALE 13 19 40.6% 4.6% DUNBAR 17 22 43 .6% 7.6% FAIR 11 23 32.4% -3 .6% FOREST HEIGHTS 14 17 45 .2% 9.2% HALL 11 33 25.0% -11.0% HENDERSON 16 19 45 .7% 9.7% MABELVALE 4 21 16.0% -20.0% MANN MIS 15 23 39.5% 3.5% MCCLELLAN 14 29 32.6% -3.4% PARK.VIEW 16 29 35.6% -.4% PULASKI HEIGHTS 6 31 16.2% -19.8% SOUTHWEST 19 10 65.5% 29.5% 98 Total 185 329 36.0% Central Office Administrators - 1993 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 4 2 Departmental Directors 5 12 93 Total 9 15 Central Office Administrators - 1994 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 3 2 Departmental Directors 5 13 94 Total 9 IS Central Office Administrators - 1995 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 3 3 Departmental Directors 6 14 95 Total 10 17 Central Office Administrators - 1996 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 2 3 Departm,ental Directors 5 13 96 Total 8 16 Central Office Administrators - 1997 Superintendent 0 Assistant Superintendent 2 2 Departmental Directors 4 12 97 Total 6 IS 0.0% 66.7% 29.4% 37.5% 100.0% 60.0% 27.8% 37.5% 100.0% 50.0% 30.0% 37.0% 100.0% 40.0% 27.8% 33.3% 0.0% 50.0% 25.0% 28.6% ~ PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT c,., Central Office Administrators - 1998 Superintendent 0 2 0.0% Assistant Superintendent 2 2 50.0% Departmental Directors 4 10 28.6% 98 Total 6 14 30.0% Principals and Assistant Prlnlclpals -1993 Principals and Assistant Prlnlclpals - 1994 s 8 18 16 52.9% S2 47 S2.So/o Principals and Assistant Priniclpals - 1995 Principals and Assistant Prinlclpals - 1996 r--- -- - ; - :~ . ~:.::-,..1- 11: -11 -~\\:::;:t~: ~~ l~-;''._~::'.i~~i~~;:f.:i!: l L-.ac ~ :-~--~t~(_I~ . - - ~r ~'l.,.t.~~l:~:..!! Elementarv Princioals 17 18 48.6% Elementary Assistant Principals II s 68.8% Secondary Principals 8 6 57.1 o/o Secondary Assistant Principals 20 13 60.6% 96 Total S6 42 53.1 o/o Principals and Assistant Prinicipals - 1997 Secondary Ass 20 16 55.6% 97 Total 57 44 56.4% Principals and Assistant Priniclpals - 1998 11 5 s 9 5 64.3% s 20 16 55 .6% - 98 Total S6 4S 55.4% ARTICLE XV TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS A. The procedure outlined below shall be followed in making teaching assignments: 1. Teaching assignments shall be based upon training, experience, competence, seniority, tenure, and such other factors as would indicate success in the position to be filled. 2. To assure that students are taught by teachers working within their areas of competence, teachers shall not be assigned, except temporarily and for good cause, outside the scope of their teaching certificates of their major or minor field of study. Teachers assigned outside their major or minor fields shall not be penalized on the salary schedule in any way. When requested, the Director of Personnel will make available to the Association a list of teachers assigned outside their major or minor fields.  3. All teaching assignments will be made by the principal or his/her superiors after the following steps are taken: a. Each year all teachers will submit in writing their personal preference for grade level, group and subject assignments, and such preference shall be a factor in making assignments. b. Department Coordinators will be consulted before assignments are made in their departments. 4. Secondary teachers shall not be required to teach more than two (2) subject matter areas with no more than two (2) preparations involved. Basic, regular, and enriched classes shall be considered separate preparations. Exceptions will only be made when it would otherwise be impossible to enroll all students who have registered for a required course. Teachers assigned more than two (2) preparations will be so notified as soon as possible and in no case later than three (3) weeks before the teach ing assignment is to commence. No teacher shall be assigned more than three (3) preparations under any circumstances. 5. Schedules of teachers who are assigned to more than one (I) school shall be arranged so that such teachers shall not be required to engage in an unreasonable amount of interschool travel. 6. The principal shall or should consult with the Building Coordinating Committee in regard to the tentative master schedule for the following year, and all teachers will be given an opportunity to discuss their tentative assignments with the principal if they so request. B. The following procedure shall be used for notifying teachers of their assignments: 1. Returning teachers shall be given written notice of their tentative grade levei, grouping, subject area assignments, building assignments, and room assignments by the end of the current school year. Newly elected teachers shall be given such notic "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1685","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court jurisdiction","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Joshua Intervenors"],"dc_date":["1997-12-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School districts","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court jurisdiction"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1685"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["21 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILE6 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. DEC 4 1gg7 [)gC O 2 1997 DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. UJ:il~Of INTERVENORS ~ ION MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the PCSSD Petition for Release From Federal court Jurisdiction A. Introduction The PCSSD has moved for a declaration of \"unitary status\" and the system's \"release from further court supervision.\" Petit., October 14, 1997, at 1. Subsequent to the filing of the motion,  _this court scheduled the matter for a hearing beginning on March 23, 1998. This memorandum discusses the standards applicable to the PCSSD motion and the showings made by the PCSSD regarding various elements of the system. In brief, the PCSSD errs with regard to the governing standards; moreover, if the district's presentation during the hearing mirrors the one made in the petition, the PCSSD will not be entitled to the relief sought. Indeed, the deficiencies of the Petition are such that it is appropriate to rescind the notice of a hearing and to deny the motion as was done in the case of a more detailed motion for termination of jurisdiction filed by the LRSD. See Mem. Opin. and 1 Order, Sept. 23, 1996, at 9-12. Consideration and resolution of the petition requires the parties and the court to address at least four areas: first, there is a need to designate the standards which identify both the areas of the system's operation to be evaluated and the criteria for the evaluations; second, there is a need to identify the extent (or degree) of compliance to be required in each area before jurisdiction is relinquished; third, there is a need to identify the party having the burden of proof to establish the requisite degree of compliance (or noncompliance); and fourth, there is a need to apply the foregoing principles. Intervenors' response addresses each area. A 14-page Attachment to this memorandum quotes many key elements of the desegregation plan of the PCSSD (April 1992) and the Interdistrict Plan {April 1992). These plans, we argue, rather than the so-called Green factors, as such, must be the focal point in the resolution of the PCSSD motion. To facilitate analysis of the issues presented by the petition, the Attachment clusters the provisions of the two plans by topic, rather than simply by page number. The Attachment is cited throughout this memorandum. The Joshua Intervenors argue below that the PCSSD has the burden of establishing a basis for the termination of supervision 2 in each area. However, ,intervenors do plan to undertake extensive discovery regarding compliance with the plans in the PCSSD. B. The Governing standards (1.) The Terms of the Plans Provide the Substantive standards for Evaluating the operation of the Pesso The PCCSD focuses upon the six areas mentioned by the supreme Court in Green v, county School Board, 391 u.s. 430, 435 (1968). See, for example, Petition at 4-5;  7-34. 1 In contrast, there is but a single, general reference to the Interdistrict Plan (Petit. at 7) and almost all of the small number of references to the 1992 PCSSD desegregation plan are in the form of terse assertions, without page citations. Ig. at 7, 9, 31, 33- 37; but see .ig. at 11 (single reference to page number in the plan). The citations to the significant provisions of the 1992 - PCSSD and Interdistrict Plans are obviously incomplete, as a reading of the Attachment shows. Moreover, the PCSSD approach is out of focus. Scores of rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and this court establish that the settlement plans, approved by this court by Order of May 1, 1992, must be the focal point in resolving the motion. 2 Intervenors next cite 1 In Green, the Supreme Court wrote in part: \"Racial identification of the system's schools was complete, extending not just to the composition of student bodies at the two schools but to every facet of school operations -- faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities\" (at 435). 2 Indeed, the PCSSD recognizes this, in effect, by the very last part of its brief requesting this court to retain jurisdiction until \"enforcement of the Settlement Agreement\" is complete. Petit. at 44 n.5. See also LRSP y. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 1996) (in appeal involving state payments 3 examples evidencing this aspect of \"the law of the case.\" In the oft-cited December 1990 opinion, the Court of Appeals directed this court to approve the \"settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties.\" LRSP v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376. The court stated that it was \"important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to ... \" (.i.g. at 1386) and alluded, similarly, to the parties' \"scrupulously and diligently carry[ing] out the settlement plans and the settlement agreement .... 11 .Ig. at 1394. Lastly, the court \"instructed\" this court \"to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, [and] to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement .... \" .Ig. at 1394, para. 8; emphasis added. The appellate court in 1991 set forth standards governing modifications to the settlement documents. It stated that \"[t]he 1989 settlement ... should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case.\" Appeal of Little Rock school District, 949 F.2d 253, 255; emphasis added. The court wrote that \"[t]he desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed.\" I.g. at 256. Lastly, the court identified \"crucial\" \"elements of the 1989 plan\" \"with respect to which no retreat should be approved.\" .Ig. These include \"the agreed effort for workers' compensation claims and other matters, .court twice notes that PCSSD and LRSD .base their arguments on the terms of the Settlement Agreement). 4 to eliminate achievemel'}t disparity between the races\" and \"appropriate involvement of parents.\" .Ig. 3 Other pertinent guidance appears in the Court of Appeals' opinion concerning the PCSSD teacher strike issue. There, the court wrote that \"[t]he job of [this court] is to enforce the settlement agreement.\" Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 954. The court added: \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" .Ig. at 955. Two examples from this court's many rulings support the Joshua Intervenors' contention that the court-approved settlement documents provide, with regard to substantive terms, the \"benchmark [at this stage] of this case.\" As previously noted, this court in a lengthy May, 1992 order, containing no reference to Green, approved the various desegregation plans, as modified.' The court's understanding of the significance of the plan provisions emerges from the following excerpt from that ruling. Special Education (PCSSD) .... While the Court approves the addition of new language regarding the relationship between social 3 It is noteworthy that the seven elements as set forth by the court are a combination of activities designed to attain an objective (or goal) and objectives\\goals. 'This action rendered the defendants subject to the possibility of a contempt sanction for the violation of a plan provision containing specific obligations. See Transcript of hearing of July 6, 1995, at 176-77 (court refers to then pending hearing on intervenors' motion to hold officials of the LRSD in contempt for plan violations). 5 deprivation and disproportionality in special education, the original language regarding long-range goals must remain in order for the Court to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing achievement disparity between the races and reducing over representation of black students in special education classes. [Order, 5-1-92 at 7-8] This court's decision of September 23, 1996, denying a similar motion of the LRSD \"to end federal court jurisdiction,\" is also noteworthy. The court first addressed an LRSD contention that its commitment to implement \"the desegregation plan\" was limited to a six year period, assuming adequate implementation. The court rejected this contention, noting that \"[t]he LRSD ... cites no provision that its duty to comply with the settlement plans ends after six years, and the Court cannot find such a provision in the settlement plans. 11 At 11.; emphasis added. This court then quoted the portion of the decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District setting forth the \"crucial\" elements of the settlements, 949 F.2d at 256, and described the predicate for any termination of federal court jurisdiction, as follows. The LRSD asserts in its pleadings that it has substantially complied with its desegregation goals. In order to end federal court jurisdiction, the LRSD must provide evidence that it has substantially complied with the aforementioned elements insofar as they obligate the LRSD. Reports of ODM and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan. Instead of presenting substantial evidence of its compliance with its goals as set forth in the plan, the LRSD submits arguments that it has achieved unitary status because data from the LRSD compares favorably with data from other districts which have been declared unitary. The Court would be inclined to .agree with the LRSD with respect to many of these arguments if the LRSD were not contractually bound by the plan which it voluntarily adopted. 6 The Court has encouraged the parties to consider modifying those parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. The court has provided the parties with the testimony of experts to assist in the modification process. Instead, the LRSD has used the testimony of these experts to ask the court to end court jurisdiction without first proceeding with plan modifications. The Court cannot so easily relieve the district of its contractual obligations, [At 11-12; emphasis added] These comments establish in this very context the centrality of the plan provisions to which the PCSSD voluntarily agreed. Three other arguments made by the PCSSD warrant responses. The PCSSD seems to argue that at this advanced stage of the remedial phase of the case, the parties and the court can return to the PCSSD's view of the scope of the liability findings as set forth by the Court of Appeals prior to the parties voluntarily agreements. Petit. at 2-3, 6-7. As intervenors have shown, this approach involves a head on collision with much law of the case at this and the appellate level. This court, we respectfully suggest, can not set aside the many rulings of the court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, necessary to adopt this approach. The PCSSD seems to argue that the fact that the Delaware case involved eight particular \"ancillary factors\" means that those factors are properly a focal point in this case. Petit. at 34. This approach is unsound. Relief regarding those factors was identified as necessary, and ordered, to support the desegregation remedy in the particular circumstances of that case. coalition to save our Children Y, Board of Education, 90 F.3d 752, 757, 769 (3rd cir. 1996). This case has its own  7 ,. decrees, entered largely by consent. The decisions of the court of appeals and this court establish, in accord with the general rule, that these decrees, in this case, provide the \"benchmark\" for measuring compliance by the officers and agents of the PCSSD. Finally, intervenors note other efforts to elevate substantive standards employed in other cases above the specific remedial steps and goals agreed to by the PCSSD in this litigation. Petit. at 1, 25, 31, 35-36, 38-41. However, none of these other cases involved a consent decree, much less one with the terms extant in this litigation. 2. The Degree of Compliance to Be Required in Each Area Prior to the court's Relinquishing Jurisdiction a. The Appropriate source of Legal Principles The parties, as has been noted, agreed in the PCSSD and - Interdistrict Plans to terms governing the operation of many aspects of the educational program afforded in the PCSSD. the parties' agreement also allowed \"[this court] to retain jurisdiction to oversee ... [the] implementation (of the agreements].\" LRSD, supra, 921 F.2d at 1390. The parties' agreements did not, however, address the standards and procedures for the termination of court jurisdiction in any particular area, including the standards delineating the degree or extent of compliance to be required in an area prior to the termination of jurisdiction. As to these matters not addressed in the agreements, it is the position of the Joshua Intervenors that the standards normally govern~ng the termination of jurisdiction in a particular area, described below, are applicable. 8 In the first place, there is no reason to believe that the plans provided for endless court jurisdiction. The system, as shown by the current motion, would not desire such jurisdiction. More significantly, by 1989 the courts had decided that perpetual jurisdiction would be inappropriate. For example, in Freeman v . Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 132-33 (1992), the court described the 1976 decision in Pasadena city Board of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424. It noted the rationale of Spangler that a federal court in a school desegregation case has the discretion to order an incremental or partial withdrawal of its supervision and control. In resolving the teacher strike issue, the Court of Appeals identified the sources of law applicable in this case. Knight. supra, 112 F.3d at 954. The court referred to the settlement agreement, \"reasonable implication therefrom,\" and \"other applicable law.\" ,lg. Each of the latter sources of law supports the approach taken by intervenors. As the parties agreed to continued jurisdiction of the district court in traditional terms, 5 it is reasonable, absent explicit terms, to imply traditional terms to govern the court's exercise of that jurisdiction, when addressing the matter of termination of jurisdiction. With the parties silent on the matter, it seems eminently reasonable to draw upon the body of law normally utilized by courts considering the termination of jurisdiction, 5 compare Brown y. Board of Education, 349 u.s. 294, 299-301 (1955) with LRSD. supra, 921 F.2d at 1390. 9 namely, \"other applicable law.\"6 Two other factors buttress this approach. First, when the parties addressed the end of court supervision in some areas, they cited the principles set forth in Freeman y, Pitts. supra, a decision focusing on the termination of jurisdiction. See \"Stipulation for Order,\" Feb. 9, 1996. Second, when dealing with matters outside the substantive terms of t he agreements, the Court of Appeals has described this court's authority in traditional terms. LRSD y, PCSSD. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394, paras. 8., 9.; Appeal of LRSD. supra, 949 F.2d at 257 (nature of continuing jurisdiction), .ig. at 258 (standard for considering modifications). 7 6 These approaches reach the same result in different ways. In the first instance, intervenors suggest that the traditional concepts be viewed, by implication, as part of the agreement. In the second approach, intervenors argue, in effect, that the agreements are supreme as far as they go, with this court, which retains jurisdiction, supplementing the agreements, in areas not addressed, by reference to the traditional principles. See Restatement of contracts. second. sec. 204 (\"Supplying an omitted Essential Term\") (\"When the parties to a bargain sufficiently defined to be a contract have not agreed with respect to a term which is essential to a determination of their rights and duties, a term which is reasonable in the circumstances is supplied by the court.\") 7 See also LRSP y, PCSSP, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995) (traditional standard employed in considering modification of LRSD plan); LRSP Y, Arkansas, Slip Opin., Oct. 14, 1997, at 3-5 (propriety of reliance on a federal statute, 42 u.s.c. Sec. 1988, as to the availability of 'a fee award, an area like this one, not addressed in the agreements between the PCSSD and other parties). 10 b. The standard for Evaluating the Degree of compliance The Supreme Court set forth the standard for evaluating the extent of compliance in a school district seeking release from court jurisdiction in Freeman v, Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 134-35. The Court wrote, in part (emphasis added): .... Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion of the court in ordering partial withdrawal are the following: whether there has been full and satisfactory compliance with the decree in those aspects of the system where supervision is to be withdrawn; .. [J  'The District court should address itself to whether the Board [hasJ complied in good faith with the desegregation decree since it was entered. and whether the vestiges of past discrimination [have] been eliminated to the extent practicable.' Board of Educ, of Oklahoma city v. Dowell, 498 U.S. ----(1991). see also Jenkins v, Missouri, 122 F.3d 588, 595-96 (8th cir. 1997) (quoting the foregoing portion of the Freeman decision); ,id. at 599 (\"As to the facilities factor, the district court found that certain court-ordered renovations remain to be completed. 959 F.Supp. at 1168. The district court did not err in requiring the terms of the court's decree to be completely fulfilled before relinquishing the ability to enforce compliance with the decree.\"); Pasadena city Board of Education y. Spangler. supra, 4271J.S. at 436, emphasis added (alluding to \"dispute as to the [district's] compliance with those portions of the plan specifying procedures for hiring and promoting teachers and administrators\"). The Joshua Intervenors relate these standards to the motion as follows. on the issue of degree of compliance, scrutiny must be given to two matters in each area addressed by the plans. 11 These are whether the ~CSSD has fully implemented, absent impossibility or the like, the various activities which it pledged to carry out to achieve objectives in that area .a.rul whether the configuration or make-up of students or staff, or the other target of the remedies, in that area, evidences achievement of the goals or objectives of the plans to the extent practicable. 3. The Burden of Proof Regarding Each Area In the Plans The matter of which party has the burden of proof regarding the areas of the system as to which the termination of court supervision is sought is another area not addressed by the parties' agreements. Based upon the same analysis, intervenors contend that the normal standards governing burden of proof in this phase of a school desegregation case apply. Under these standards, we submit, the PCSSD has the burden of proof to establish full compliance with the various steps set forth in the plans and to show that the plan goals have been fulfilled to the extent practicable. The general rule is that a school district has the burden of establishing the predicate for the termination of court jurisdiction in one or more areas of the case. Freeman v. Pitts, 118 L.Ed.2d 108, 137 (1992); 9 see also Wedo not suggest that these areas be viewed in isolation. The status of the activities is most important where the configuration of students or staff, as relevant, continues to reflect a racial pattern. '\"The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation.\" 12 United States Y, Fordice, 120 L.Ed.2d 575, 599 (1992) (higher education). 10 More generally, assignment of this burden to LRSD is consistent with the standards for allocation of the burden of proof set forth by the supreme Court in Keyes v. School District No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 208-10 (1973). In Keyes, a school desegregation case in which segregation had not been required or permitted by state law, the Court identified instances in which Denver school authorities had the burden of proof. For example, proof of intentionally segregative actions in a substantial part of the system was held to establish a prima facie case that actions having a segregative effect in other parts of the system were also motivated by race. See 413 U.S. at 208-09. 11 The Court explained the basis for this rule as follows: \"This burden-shifting principle is not new or novel. There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, 'is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.' 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence 2486, at 275 (3d Ed 1940).\" See 413 U.S. at 209. -The court then cited several situations in which considerations of \"policy and fairness\" had 10 \"Brown and its progeny, however, established that the burden of proof falls on the State, and not the aggrieved plaintiffs, to establish that it has dismantled its prior de jure segregated system. Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300. \" 11 \"In that circumstance, it is both fair and reasonable to require that the school authorities bear the burden of showing that their actions as to other segregated schools within the system were not also motivated by segregative intent.\" See 413 U.S. at 209. 13 been held to support a requirement that school authorities explain actions or conditions. See 413 U.S. at 209-10. Considerations of \"policy and fairness\" warrant allocating to PCSSD the burden of showing compliance with the terms of the settlement before the termination of the court's jurisdiction. The school district obviously has superior access to personnel and data, as well as greater resources, in. terms of personnel, to compile materials. The district's counsel, through its highest administrators, can request the lead personnel in each area to compile data and materials, if any there be, designed to show that the specified remedial steps have been undertaken and that goals have been attained to the extent practicable. This court seemingly adopted this approach when ruling on the earlier LRSD motion. It referred to the LRSD \"provid[ing] evidence that it has substantially complied and Order, May 1, 1992, at 11.  11 Mem. Opin. The PCCSD acknowledges having the burden of proof on the so-called Green factors. Petit. at 37. However, based upon its reading of the decision in the Delaware case, coalition to Saye Our Children. supra, the PCSSD argues that the burden of proof rests with the Joshua Intervenors as to any other areas where the relinquishment of jurisdiction is opposed. Petit. at 37-38. This argument is based upon an erroneous interpretation of the Delaware decision and again ignores the content of the courtapproved agreements in this case. The opinion in the coalition case discusses three areas of 14 district operations. These are the areas covered by the so-called Green factors (90 F.3d at 761-69, 776); eight so-called \"ancillary factors, as to which a \"1978 order of [the] court required the implementation of eight specific programs ancillary to the 9-3 pupil assignment plan\" (at 769-76); and \"certain performance disparities\" in the areas of achievement, special education and dropout rates, neither among the Green factors, nor covered \"in the ancillary relief order ... \".Ig. at 776. With regard to burden of proof as to termination of court supervision, the appellate court wrote: \"We emphasize that here we are not discussing the burden of proving compliance with the Green factors or the 1978 Order, as to which the school districts acknowledge bearing the evidentiary burden. Our discussion here, and our allocation of the burden of proof to [the Coalition] is limited to the issue of proving that the identified performance disparities are vestiges of de jure segregation.\" Ig. Thus, in the Coalition case, the court allocated the burden of proof to the plaintiffs only in areas not covered by a court order. Here, in contrast, the Joshua Intervenors' concerns, in their entirety, including as to achievement and special education, involve activities addressed in detail in the agreements, which the district has been ordered to implement, by reason of this court's approval of the plans. In sum, the Coalition decision is supportive of the intervenors' approach regarding burden of proof. 15 1 ' I i :1 c. Application of the Governing Standards to the Areas Addressed by the Plans, Including but Not Limited to Those Addressed in the Pesso Petition The Joshua Intervenors next discuss the various areas of the operation of the PCSSD which are addressed in the Petition. In keeping with the controlling legal standards, intervenors focus upon the specific activities which the PCSSD promised to undertake in the agreements, as well as th.e stated goals (objectives). Comments are made about the statistics presented (or not presented) in some instances. 12 Lastly, as appropriate, intervenors note distinguishing factors regarding the decisions cited by the PCSSD. 1. The Assignment of students. Including within Schools The PCSSD submits data on student enrollment, by school, - which is impressive, when considered in isolation. However, the system's showing in this area is incomplete for several reasons. 13 First. The petition is silent as to the plans of the PCSSD regarding student assignment, if supervision in this area is ended. One basis for jurisdiction to continue in an area is when this \"is necessary or practicable to achieve compliance with the 12 The PCSSD approach regarding statistical data varies. There is at times data by school; at times aggregated data, not showing the pattern by school; and at times no data. 13 Intervenors note ODM's conclusion, based upon its interpretation of the agreement, that in 1996-97, eight elementary schools and two secondary schools in the PCSSD \"[fell] outside the target for racial balance.\" see 1996-97 Erollment and Racial Balance in the LRSD and the PCSSD, ODM, Dec. 18, 1996, at 13, 14. 16 decree in other facets of the school system; -\" Freeman v. Pitts. supra, 118 L.Ed.2d at 135. Based upon the content of the plans, intervenors raise concerns infra about access to programs and the quality of school facilities available to class members. Intervenors and the court need to be informed about PCSSD's future plans for student assignment to know how they interact with these, and possibly other areas. 14 Second. The total failure of the petition to discuss the topic of the assignment of class members within schools is a major shortcoming. This issue is not the subject of either text, or statistics. In its 1990 decision, the Court of Appeals alluded to comments made by the intervenors' lead counsel, as follows: \"As one of the counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wisely remarked - during the oral argument, it is important which schools students attend, but it is also important what kind of education they receive after they get there. LRSD. supra, 921 F.2d at 1385. The PCSSD desegregation plan contains considerable content regarding assignment within schools. It addresses \"classroom racial balance\"; \"ability grouping,\" including its possible elimination; talented and gifted programs, including at the 14 In the Interdistrict Plan, the PCSSD agreed to cooperative efforts with the LRSD with regard to interdistrict schools (in both districts) and magnet schools (in the LRSD). Attach. at 11. The case file shows that the LRSD is not seeking the termination of jurisdiction at this time. The court and the intervenors need to know the PCSSD's future plans regarding the magnet and interdistrict schools, in particular, to assess the impact on the LRSD plan. The fact that three school districts joined in agreements may ~ead to the need to craft some special rules at the time when the limiting of the court's jurisdiction is proposed. 17 secondary level; \"honors and advanced placement courses\"; and \"advanced core curriculum courses.\" Attach. at 11-14. The plans provide for the gathering of data, the identification of any problems, and the crafting of solutions, if need be. Attach. at 6 I 12  We do not suggest that the PCSSD must provide a novel-length explanation of its implementation of the plan and the current configuration in each of these areas. However, to meet its burden, the PCSSD should be able to provide some statistical data, by school and race, as well as evidence of its carrying out of the specified activities. Citations to documents generated over time would often allow verification of the assertions made, if verification is possible. Failing such an approach in this and other areas, there is no guarantee that the plan provisions have been more than simply verbiage. 2. Transportation The resolution of this area must await resolution of the student assignment area. In the absence of information about future plans as to assignment to schools and data about access to enriched programs, one must speculate to address this area. 3. Personnel. Including Qualifications The Petition sets forth data regarding three areas. These are \"certified secondary staffing\" (by school but without a breakdown by category), \"principals and assistant principals\" (aggregate data), and \"central office.\" At 17-30. While the results cited are clear1y  positive in nature, they do not in view 18 . - of the full sweep of the commitments undertaken (Attachment at 9-10) warrant the relinquishment of jurisdiction. The existence of these commitments also distinguishes this case from others to which the PCSSD alludes. Petit. at 25. The PCSSD pledged that \"[a]enrollment levels of the organization will reflect a desegregated staff .... 11 Attach. at 9. The shortcomings in the PCSSD presentation are as follows: First. Data for certified staff should be provided by category, by school, so that it is possible to determine the extent to which black and white pupils are exposed to black faculty members, the staff members with whom students spend the majority of the school day. Second. The plan provides that the PCSSD \"shall staff each school with at least one minority administrator  11 Attach. at 10. The petition identifies, for 1996-97, 33 black principals and assistant principals and 37 schools. At 11-13, 27. Therefore, there is a need for a chart showing the number of administrators by school and by race to allow evaluation of the fulfillment of this objective. Third. The plan pledged efforts to desegregate several categories of staff, for which no data is now provided. These are \"support staff\"; the \"Special Education Department\"; \"facilitator\" in the Talented and Gifted Program; and \"coaches and band directors.\" Attach. at 9-10. Inclusion is important in each of these areas. For example, the support staff are often the first staff members to greet parents. Their make-up, therefore, 19 . - seems related to the central goal of promoting parental involvement. Data for these areas should allow a determination of whether there has been any progress over time. Fourth. The PCSSD made promises regarding staff qualifications, generally, and, in schools offering the compensatory program. The latter pledges were more specific. Attach. at 10. This area, an important one_ in a plan emphasizing educational quality and the narrowing of the achievement gap, is ignored. 4. co-curricular and Extracurricular Activities The PCSSD voluntarily agreed to more than three pages of provisions concerning these areas. Plan at 68-69, 76-77; ID Plan at 6; see also Attach. at 4-5. Under the law of the case, - citation to decisions dealing with systems without such commitments does not suffice to establish a basis for termination of the court's role. Intervenors note the following specific shortcomings in the presentation on this topic: First. The PCSSD has yet to submit the promised supplementation in the \"co-curricular\" realm. Petit. at 33. As the plan provides for a goal for each school (Attach. at 4), the data should be school-based. The providing of data for more than one year, as was done in the case of certified staff, will be necessary to permit a determination of whether any progress has been made over time. Should the data show \"minority underrepresentation\" in the past, the PCSSD should provide 20 ,. evidence that the affirmative steps promised by the plan (Attac "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1683","title":"Court filings concerning PCSSD's amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, ODM, ''Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County'', and Joshua Intervenors notices of deposition for receivership of Southwest Junior High School","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Lawyers","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","Education and state","School integration","School districts","School administrators","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning PCSSD's amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants, ODM, ''Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County'', and Joshua Intervenors notices of deposition for receivership of Southwest Junior High School"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1683"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["106 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion; District Court, three orders; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; District Court, order; District Court, seven notices of deposition; District Court, notice to take deposition upon oral examination; District Court, memorandum of Joshua intervenors in support of their emergency motion concerning attorneys' fees; District Court, response to motion to quash deposition; Court of Appeals decision 96-2047; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, motion to supplement record; Court of Appeals, supplemental appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al.; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Monitoring report, ''Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County''; District Court, order; District Court, joint motion for extension of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION f;lED U.S. DISTRICT COURT ':A STF.RN DISTRl(:T ARKANSAS 1' 0-[~\"-' :..',. /J\" 1i 997 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK 3v: __.. - }\u003eL--A-l'ld'f'ffi'~  ..,n .. .u~~LERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an order directing the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to provide for the record a listing of all monitoring reports which it has issued during the past fifteen months, or is in the process of issuing ( with the expected date of such report) involving the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. This motion is made because: a) there have been no monitoring reports issued by ODM and received by the Joshua lntervenors involving these two school districts during the period that the Court has granted leave to the Little Rock School District to utilize the ODM in a nonmonitoring, advisory capacity; and, b) because it is necessary to have the benefit of such monitoring reports by the ODM in aid of Joshua's presentation regarding the anticipated evidentiary presentation of the PCSSD during the hearing before the court scheduled for March 23, 1998. The Joshua Intervenors observe that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit directed the creation of ODM and set forth the expectation that monitoring would be vigorous, continuous, purposeful and plan directed to enable contemplated implementation of the Settlement Agreement. The authority for this motion is the Eighth Circuit's several Opinions directing monitoring and - enforcement of the settlement plans. This motion is being made also because there is a general impression among some members of the Joshua class that the Court monitoring is not being directed toward protecting the interests of the class and is being directed toward promoting minimum compliance or developing excuse for noncompliance of, by and from the districts with the Court approved plans. There is no prejudice to any party by the requested relief Respectfully submitted, By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 /J:k?l k. ~ Jo ~er, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been served upon all counsel of reco:g~ placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail with sufficient postage prepaid, on this - day of December, 1997. 9:ftl~~ John W. Walker IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR'\u003cANSAS DEC O 5 1997 Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors requesting that this Court direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (uODM\") to provide for the record a listing of all - monitoring reports which it has issued during the past fifteen months or is in the process of issuing in regard to the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District. 1 Whenever ODM issues a monitoring report, it has been this Court's practice to make that report a part of the record in this case. However, this Court will grant the Joshua Intervenors ' current request. By copy of this Order, ODM is hereby directed to provide for the record a listing of all monitoring reports that it has issued during the past fifteen months or is in the process of issuing. 11\\__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5= day of December 1997. 1 Docke! No. 3081. rHIS DOCUME!NT ENTERED ON DOCK\u0026 SHEET IN OOUPUAHCE WITH AUL~ 71(8) FRCP ~ ,'UD'Y1 IY_~_ ct:: __ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * FILED U.S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT AR'\u003cANSAS DEC O 5 1997 JA~ES W. iMcCO~ACK, CLERK vs. * * * * * * * * * * * By._ \\ '~ I\\ 7_, \\I\\, '\" No. LR-C-82-866 oeP CLERX PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., In tervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting that this Court convene a hearing involving the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), and Joshua in order to review the circumstances said to exist at Southwest Junior High School. 1 Joshua requests that this Court, upon appropriate findings, determine that it is necessary to have the school placed in receivership or in the hands of a specially designated authority other than the present principal of the school. The time for filing a response to this motion has passed, and the LRSD has not filed a response. This motion was filed during the time in which the Court suspended monitoring of the LRSD in order to allow the LRSD to develop proposed modifications to the desegregation plan. By requesting that this Court place Southwest Junior High School in receivership, Joshua has requested a drastic, equitable remedy. Throughout the history of this case, this Court has never placed a school into receivership. After reviewing Joshua's motion and brief in support, 1 Docket No. 3038. 08 this Court concludes that the facts as presented by Joshua do not justify the appointment of a receiver to take over the operations of the school. Therefore, Joshua's motion is denied. ft IT IS SO ORDERED THIS --!:\u003e- \"-day of December 1997. rHtS OOCUM8'T ENTERED ON OOCt(\u0026l SHEET IN OC'AIPU~ WITH RULE  AN00R 79(a) FRCP JN lHXi!J..7_ av _vr-___ _ 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Iritervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl(ANSAS DEC O 5 1997 By previous Order and in response to a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors, this Court directed the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") to provide for the record a listing of all monitoring reports that it has issued during the past fifteen months or is in the process of issuing. Attached to this Order is a letter this Court received from ODM in response to the Court's request. The Clerk is directed to file this Order and the attached letter, thereby making the letter a part of the record in this case. _?\\..__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS ~ ') aay of December 1997. rntS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COAAf\u003eUANCE WITH RULE 56 ANOIOR 79(a) FRCP ON /,_:]. ,/S/-91 BY _,lt ___ _ 084 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas - Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 5, 1997 Judge Susan Webber Wright U. S District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 302 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright : 201 East Markham, Suite 51 0 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 I am happy to provide the requested list of the monitoring reports ODM has issued during the past 15 months, even though, as the Court has noted, those reports are already a matter of record. To the list of filed repons, I am pleased to add those which we are currently in the process of researching and writing, along with the approximate date of publication. The list attached by no means encompasses nor reflects the extensive activities and tremendous amount of work this office has done during the last 15 months. As you are aware, issuing monitoring reports is only one of the many ways in which ODM monitors and otherwise carries out the duties of this office. cki~ Ann S. Brown Enc. cc: All Counsel - ODM Monitoring Reports Issued Since July 1996 ~ Subject July 12, 1996 LRSD incentive schools July 31 , 1996 Elementary school facilities in the NLRSD December 18, 1996 Double funding of the LRSD incentive schools December 18, 1996 Enrollment and racial balance in the districts May 7, 1997 Budgets of the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCS SD June 4, 1997 LRSD incentive school extended year program Target Date December 1997 January 1998 January 1998 February 1998 February 1998 March 1998 March 1998 ODM Monitoring Reports In Progress SuQ.iect ADE's monitoring of the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD Enrollment and racial balance in the districts Student achievement in the PCSSD Secondary school facilities in the PCSSD Secondary staffing in the PCSSD Student discipline in the PCSSD Student participation in extracurricular activities in the PCSSD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEJlfED DEC S 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S REPLY TO ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S \"AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS The PCSSD for its reply to the ADE's response states: 1. First, the PCSSD agrees with the ADE conclusions set forth at paragraph 2 of its response dated December 2, 1997. Accordingly, in revised calculations which appear infra, the PCSSD has deducted 2.9 hours for Sam Jones and 1.5 hours for Angell Jones in respect of the petition for rehearing. 2. The PCSSD agrees in part with ADE' s contentions regarding time spent defending the appeal. In reviewing the time records submitted with the December 2, 1996 Affidavit, the PCSSD has identified the following time entries, all for Sam Jones, which relate to work on that appeal: .8 5/8/95 .8 6/21/95 .6 6/26/95 .5 8/4/95 .1 . 8/9/95 2.9 11/15/95 Reducing this total by 1/3 results in subtracting an additional 1.9 hours from Sam Jones. However, the PCSSD disagrees that any reduction should accompany the oral argument. The travel time to St. Louis and the argument itself were not affected by the fact that three issues as compared to two were involved in the appeal. 1 Accordingly, the PCSSD has not reduced the time spent travelling to and arguing before the Court of Appeals. 3. The PCSSD disagrees with the ADE's conclusions regarding the affidavit and supporting time records. Contrary to the State's assumption, most of the time was spent regarding the final review and editing of time records spanning three years. It is simply a fact that reviewing, separating and then reassembling time records limited to two or three subjects is a tedious and time consuming matter. Particularly since the PCSSD is submitting no time or claim for the most recent work done in preparing the amended petition, the Court should accept the summary set forth in paragraph 4 below. 4. Having made the additional deletions as described in paragraphs 1 and 2, the revised claim is as follows: Timekeeper M.S. Jones C.S. Hancock A. Jones _ B. Benjamin V. Bryant J.D. Thompson M.A. Gocke A. Haguewood L. Hudson D. Compton J.H. Sorn 1994 $13,824.00 $ $ 654.50 31. 50 $ 2,020.50 $ 65.00 $ 30.00 $ 32.50 $ 20.00 1995 $ 6,936.00 $ 132.00 $ 1,281.50 $ 735.00 $ 181.50 1996 $ 4,655.00 $ 4,263.00 $ 75.00 $ 104.50 $ 600.00 1The 2.9 hours reflected on November 15, 1995 was the entry for preparation for oral argument. Thus, the preparation time has already been reduced by one-third. SUBTOTAL $16,678.00 $ 9,266.00 $ 9,697.50 TOTAL FEES 1994-1996: $35,641.50 CONCLUSION For the reasons previously explained, and as supplemented herein, the PCSSD prays for a total fee award of $35,641.50 to which post-judgment interest at the current federal rate should attach. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By __ -,,,'--+-----'~.._ ____ _ M. Att 76060) for aski County District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 1 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FILED U.S. OIST\"ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT A~'\u003cANSAS IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC O 8 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * :~ESJ . ~~A~ 2~K DEP CLERK-\u003c... Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVEP DEC 9 1897 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER By previous Order dated December 5, 1997, this Court denied a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") requesting that this Court convene a hearing to review the circumstances said to exist at Southwest Junior High School and determine that it is necessary to place the school in receivership. 1 In that Order, this Court inadvertently indicated that the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") had failed to respond to the motion. For the record, this Court wishes to clarify that the LRSD did file a response in opposition to the motion. 2 After reviewing that response, this Court reaffirms its initial decision to deny the Joshua Intervenors' motion. I(_, IT IS SO ORDERED THIS g day of December 1997. 1 Docket No. 3083. 2 Docket No. 3044 and Docket No. 3045. A 71I / ,f '!\" ,y1 ;;1 Oi,. V l4h .lt';Jii: ONITEDST'A TES DISTRIC J OGE rHtS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET s+-IEET IN COMPLIANCE \"?'~::VLE 58 ANOt'OA 79(1) FACP ON lco/fa _y_ IY ...f..S ::-.._ __ ...., 085 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INTERVENORS 01r'.r\" .\\\"\\i'i\": lu\"'C, DESEGREGAilON ,iOi'!110R\\NG PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Dr. Leslie Carnine, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 16, 1997 @ 1:00 p.m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. ... . : CBRTIJICM'B QI SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of united States mail on this 10th day counsel of record. sent via IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Dr. Don Roberts, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 16, 1997 @ 2:30 p.rn. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. CBRTifICATB or SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of United States mail on this 10th day counsel of record. via IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John w. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Margaret Gremillion, at the place and time identitied below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Wednesday, December 17, 1997@ 9:00 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. .. :- .;.... . .:.-':.-... ... .. ~ . ~  .  ~ ... ::. . ---.. . . f . v' ,' .. .  + CBRTilICATB or SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was sent via 4t United States mail on this 10th day De~ember, 1 97 to all counsel of record. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John w. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Brady Gadberry, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 17, 1997 @ 10:00 a.rn. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. cuiri;xcli'1i' :or' sERVIcB . . I do hereby state tha~ a'\" c~py of United states mail on this  10th .day of counsel of record.  via IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Sadie Mitchell, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 17, 1997 @ 11:00 a.m. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. '  A ... , -~.  CBRTIFICATB or SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of  the _foregoing was sent via United States mail on this 10th day 6 ecem r , . 997 counsel of record.   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Nancy Acre, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified Court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Wednesday, December 17, 1997@ 1:30 p . m. at the law offices of JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206.  .. ~. , ~::,,:l~J:C,..~V~ ~' ~ :'--~~~~t,'.::~}= ;n. ~ . ~ ~,~:\\.'-:I't.~~ . . ~: :- -~- .. . . . . ~' ,~ ~ -!'~\\.. ,.-.;.,;.t.1:  :,~~ . ..,.. '\\',~ ',,- ...  .  QBR'l'IJIQATI QP SBRVICB I do hereby state that a copy of United States_ mail oh this 10th day f counsel .. of record.   via IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions to the - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Joshua Intervenors, by and through their attorneys, John W. Walker, P.A., will take the deposition of Dr. Richard Hurley, at the place and time identified below, before a Certified court Reporter or some other officer authorized by law to administer oaths. Said deposition will be used for discovery and/or evidentiary purposes, to full extent as may be allowed by the Federal Rules of civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The deposition will take place on Tuesday, December 17, 1997 @ 2:30 p.m. at the law offices of JOHN w. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72206. ... .. . ..,;,  .   .,.  .. \\   .,. t.,,  ~  .  \"\" : .,-,\\~. :..:.. ;1' .'i. . CBRTilICA'l'B or 'SBRVICI  ..?~t't~ {~~ ~,~I~i\u003e.4  I do hereby state that a copy of th~ foregoing was sent via United States mail on this 10th day  counsel of record. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION F'l-~~~'!},ED . - q \\~. L . TO: John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 l\u003cl- 1 5 1997 Orr/CE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING This will notify you that on December 16, 1997, commencing at 9:30 a.m., at the office of FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK, 2000 First Commercial Building, 400 W. Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas, the plaintiff in this case will take the deposition upon oral examination of Bonnie Brown or current Joshua class representative for the Little Rock School District before a duly qualified Court Reporter. Ms. Brown or current Joshua class representativ~ for the Little Rock School District is requested to bring to the deposition documents in- her possession pertaining to the position of the Joshua Intervenors with respect to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The deposition upon oral examination will be taken pursuant to and in accordance with Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure. You are invited to attend and cross- - examine. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:-=:~ ChristopherHell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice To Take Deposition has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 10th day of December, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 - 2 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 --- 3 FILED U S DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~sTE.RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEC 1 2 1997 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NO. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED DEC l 5 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAMES w. rpr9QfM1''r}.-f LrnK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENOR Memorandum of the Joshua Intervenors in Support of Their Emergency Motion Concerning Attorneys' Fees This memorandum supports the emergency motion of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the payment of attorneys' fees to the these intervenors by the LRSD. It is designed to supplement that motion. The motion draws upon the authority of the court to interpret the agreement of the parties, to modify the agreement of the parties in appropriate circumstances, and to provide for interim awards of attorneys' fees. The intervenors assume, for the purposes of the motion, the existence of the limitation on the intervenors' ablity to secure fee awards against the LRSD, found to exist by this court in September 1996. The motion seeks the recognition of an entitlement to fees on two grounds. First. Intervenors contend that their work regarding the LRSD's motion for the approval of a Revised Plan, which includes a request to relace and extinguish the current LRSD and Interdistrict Plans, is outside the terms of the agreement urged by the LRSD and found by the court. See 1 Motion, para. 9. Second. Intervenors contend in effect that the court has the same ability to consider modifications of the fee agreement as it has, on motion of the LRSD, to consider modifications of the substantive terms of the current, multiple plans. In Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d 253, 258 (1991), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, set forth the standard applicable to requested modifications of a consent decree as follows: We find the Sixth Circuit case of Heath v. Decourcy. 888 F.2d 1105 (6th Cir. 1989), instructive on this issue: To modify [a) consent decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in it original decree which impedes achieving the goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or) disadvantageous, or because circumstsnaces and conditions have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. Id. at 1110. Later, in LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995), the court wrote as follows: A party seeking modification of a consent decree 'must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree.' Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). If the moving party meets this burden, the District Court must then determine 'whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.' Id. at 391. The modification 'must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation,' nor strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it conforms to the constitutional floor.' Ibid. In its memorandum in support of the Revised Plan, the LRSD quotes from the decision in Jacksonville Branch NAACP v. Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992) as follows: \"Modification [of a consent decree) may be considered 2 when. (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\" The modification sought is consistent with these formulations of the relevant standard. As set forth in the motion, the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors have had to engage in an extraordinary amount of work over a seven year period, much of it due to poor compliance by the LRSD. Motion, para. 7, 10. The LRSD motion envisions that the Revised Plan would be in effect for at least three years beginning eight months hence, i.e., with the start of the 1998-99 school year. LRSD Revised Plan at 16. It is obvious that much additional work by intervenors' representatives will be necessary, not only in connection with the consideration of the Revised Plan, but also in connection with its implementation if it is adopted (or with the current plans if it is not). There is another important consideration. The portion of the Settlement Agreement concerning attorneys' fees contains the following provision: \"The parties are also satisfied, upon a review of their own time records and costs in this litigation over the last five years, that the payment [the settlement amount] is fair and reasonable and consistent with the payments made over that period of time to counsel for the other parties\" [Part v., explanation and emphasis added]. When it reviewed and approved the settlement, the Court of Appeals held the figure to be reasonable in terms of the past work performed in a 34 year 3 period. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1392 (8th Cir. 1990). Intervenors' noted in their fee petition of November 21, 1995, that counsel for the LRSD had been paid for 7,261.55 additional hours on this case through August 1995 and counsel for the NLRSD 3302 hours through April 1995. In addition, counsel for the PCSSD had been paid for hours throughout the postjudgment period, but the number was unknown. Affidavit of J. W. Walker at 10-11. In brief, the extraordinary number of hours required and the LRSD poor record of compliance contributing to that fact, the continuing need for work in the LRSD, and the additional, and continuing, payments to all counsel for the other parties are reasonably interpreted as a changed circum "}],"pages":{"current_page":15,"next_page":16,"prev_page":14,"total_pages":35,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":168,"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}}]}}