{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_654","title":"Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Stephens Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School buildings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Stephens Elementary"],"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/654"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nJ d Lari JAN 2 \u0026amp; 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office oi Dassgreganon p/icniioriug NO. 93-3592 PULASKI CTY. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION TO EXPAND PAGE LIMIT FOR APPELLANTS' BRIEF The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel. for their Motion to Expand the Page Limit for Appellants' Brief, state as follows: 1. Because the three above-referenced appeals have been consolidated, the 50-page limit may be inadequate to permit the Appellants to adequately brief the issues on appeal. 2. A maximum limit of 75 pages would be sufficient. WHEREFORE, Appellants pray that the page limit be increased to 75 pages. Respectfully submitted. r / / / r- David SchoenDAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy postage prepaid to the counsel o of the foregoing has been mailed, f record listed below on this day of January, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 / I Dav^id SchoenIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 1 8 1994 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Monitoring No. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals from The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NO. 93-3592 M. SAMUEL JONES, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 w. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 371-0808 72201 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School DistrictTABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 ISSUE PRESENTED ON APPEAL 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3 ARGUMENT 5 CONCLUSION 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 14 1SUMMARY AND REOaEST FOR ORAL ARGOTCEMT The Pulaski County Special School District is an appellee in Case No. 93-3592 only. In that matter, the District Court concluded that the present Stephens school site did not qualify under the language of the settlement plans as a potential site for a new interdistrict Stephens school. The Pulaski County Special School District does not believe that oral argument is necessary on this separate issue since the matter largely, if not entirely, involves the District Court's interpretation of the meaning of specific portions of the settlement plans previously approved by this Court. However, should the Court determine to hear argument on this issue, the Pulaski County Special School District would participate in the argument and believes that 15 minutes would be sufficient time to present its case and respond to questions from the Court. Finally, the Pulaski County Special School District is authorized to state that the North Little Rock School District joins with it in presenting the position of appellees' on this issue. 11TABLE OF AUTHORITIES gage CASES: Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, (Sth Cir.1991) .......................... 5 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, (Sth Cir.1990) ................... 6, 11 111PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Pulaski County Special School District does not disagree with the preliminary statement set forth by the Little Rock School District in its brief on the Stephens school site except to say that the order denies the relief sought by the Little Rock School District. 11. 2. I. ISSUE PRESENTED ON APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN REJECTING THE PRESENT STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE AS A POTENTIAL INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL LOCATION BY FAILING TO CONTINUE THE HEARING INITIALLY BEGUN ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE ITS DECISION PRIMARILY REFLECTED ITS OWN REASONED INTERPRETATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS REACHED IN THIS CASE. Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir.1991) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (Sth Cir.1990) 2STATEMENT OF THE CASE Although three cases have been consolidated for appeal before this Court, the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") is appellee only in Case No. 93-3592. That appeal by the LRSD and Joshua seeks to reverse the District Court's order of September 27, 1993, ruling out the old Stephens school site as a potential location for construction of the new Stephens interdistrict school required by the settlement plans. The threshold issue confronted by the District Court was whether the old Stephens site even qualified as a potential candidate for construction of the new Stephens interdistrict school. The pertinent language of the plans interpreted by the District Court is set forth in her order of September 27, 1993, and, for the convenience of the Court, said order is reproduced in the addendum to this brief. The two provisions are that: It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. Desegregation Plan, at 139. (Emphasis added.) LRSD LRSD will build a new Stephens Interdistrict School ... located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue ... The old Stephens school building will then be closed. Desegregation Plan, at 10. (Emphasis added.) Interdistrict (Ad. p. 2). The District Court, as part of her order, concluded from this language that: 1. The new school would be built at a new site and the old school closed. (Ad. p. 2). 33. 4. That the plans clearly envisioned that the new Stephens school would be near 1-630. (Ad. p. 2) . That constructing the new school at the old site would not further the goals of the desegregation plans. (Ad. p. 2). That the old site is further from 1-630 than any of the other proposed sites. (Ad. p. 3). 2. 5. 6. That to approve reconstruction at the old site would constitute a disputed modification of the Plan. (Ad. p. 3-4). That the purpose of the new interdistrict school is to promote interdistrict desegregation, not to stabilize neighborhoods. (Ad. p. 5). Before the Court's order was entered, several site selection committees were composed and recommendations made all as generally described by the LRSD at pages 4-8 of its brief. In her order declining to approve the old Stephens site, the District Court gave the parties until October 15, 1993, to reach consensus. Thereafter, on October 15, 1993, the PCSSD and NLRSD filed with the Clerk their respective preferences evaluating the sites considered by the various site selection committees. (Ad. p. 18-21). No further formal proceedings have been had regarding selection of a site for Stephens pending this appeal. 4ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN REJECTING THE PRESENT STEPHENS SCHOOL SITE AS A POTENTIAL INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL LOCATION BY FAILING TO CONTINUE THE HEARING INITIALLY BEGUN ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE ITS DECISION PRIMARILY REFLECTED ITS OWN REASONED INTERPRETATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS REACHED IN THIS CASE. In 1991, in the context of articulating the deference to be accorded to and the standard of review to be applied to decisions of the District Court regarding changes in the desegregation plan, the parties were instructed by this Court that\nWe recognize the language of this opinion is somewhat general. It leaves a considerable degree of latitude to the District Court ... The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. Its decisions, whatever they are, are of course subject to review on appeal, but the review will be on an abuse of discretion basis, and we will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. Appeal of Little Pock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 257 (Sth Cir.1991). This admonition was merely an extension of this Court's earlier directive issued as part of its approval of the settlement plans in 1990. At the end of that decision, this Court reiterated that\nThe District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. 5Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir.1990). The District Court Correctly Interpreted the Plans. When measured against this legal backdrop, the order of the District Court refusing to approve the old Stephens site as an appropriate site for the new intradistrict school is readily sustained. In the first instance, at least, the District Court was required to interpret the meaning of the settlement documents. The Court interpreted the settlement agreements to preclude the use of the old Stephens site for the new interdistrict school. That reading, particularly when evaluated under the abuse of discretion standard, must be sustained. It probably startles this Court to see that both Joshua and LRSD ascribe provisional status to the new Stephens location specified by the Plans. LRSD contends that: \"The relocation of Stephens school is merely 'proposed,' not required.\" (LRSD brief at 11) Joshua echoes this \"proposition\" at page 58 of its brief. \"Although the Plan does use the word \"relocate,\" relocation is merely 'proposed.' Thus, relocation is not absolutely mandated by the Plan.\" PCSSD has been under the impression, after the last several appeals in this case, that what was \"proposed\" in the Plans became what was \"required\" after the \"proposal\" was approved by this Court. That the Plans somehow retain provisional status is 6not an hallucination shared by the PCSSD and would probably likewise surprise the District Court as well. PCSSD submits that what is really being said in the Interdistrict Plan is that Stephens will be relocated, which is precisely what prompted the District Court to italicize the word relocate in her September order, now the subject of this appeal. Nor can it be argued with any reasonable degree of veracity that relocate means to move the facility 10 or 20 feet closer to the freeway on the same campus. Such a strained interpretation of the Plan is not worthy of further argument. That the old Washington school was relocated on the same campus is of no moment to the instant appeal. The Washington reconstruction was done by agreement of all the parties in a phase of the case that preceded the 1989 settlement agreement (See LRSD brief at 12) and was accomplished before the concept of the 1-630 corridor\" became a guidepost for future school construction. Both the reconstruction of Washington and the construction of Carver magnet were both \"done deals\" before the 1989 plans were negotiated and written. They did not then, nor do they now have, anything to do with the 1-630 corridor concept.' What is perhaps more constructive to note is that the new King interdistrict school is built on Interstate 630, can be seen Accordingly, Joshua's argument presented at page 59 of its brief pointing out that Washington is approximately 8 blocks from Interstate 630 is irrelevant. Of course, what Joshua ignores. and what is more salient, is the fact that Washington is but three blocks from Interstate 30 and is visible from that freeway. 7from Interstate 630, and is a school to which PCSSD has always agreed it can successfully recruit its white students. (Ad. p. 7, par. 3). The District Court's interpretation that the Plans \"clearly envision that the Stephens interdistrict school be near 1-630,\" and that \"the current site of the Stephens school is farther from 1-630 than any of the other proposed sites that lie between 1-30 and University Avenue,\" is a reasonable interpretation of the corridor concept and should not be disturbed under the abuse of discretion standard. The LRSD strains mightily to patch together a sustainable issue on appeal by contending that it does not contend it has to construct the new school at the present site, but only that it ma construct a new school at the present site. First, it is clear that for various reasons, including her interpretation of the Plans, that the District Court is not going to approve the old site even should this Court be inclined, for reasons unknown to PCSSD, to add it to the list of \"eligible\" candidates. Thus the relief, if it were granted, would be hollow. Even LRSD recognizes that the school must be located where it can be desegregated, and where PCSSD white students will attend. (Ad. p. 7, par. 5). Second, even though the Plan states that the new Stephens would draw its Black student body largely from the students attending the old Stephens school (LRSD brief at 11), this does not translate into a requirement, and none is contained within 8the Plan, that the school must be located within the present Stephens attendance zone. As a parallel, the Plans provided that PCSSD would build the new Crystal Hill interdistrict school, which it did, and would draw its white student body from the Pine Forest and Oak Grove Elementary attendance zones. However, Crystal Hill was not located in any zone, but upon vacant land actually in the City of North Little Rock. The same scenario has been approved by the Court for the population of the new Clinton interdistrict school. which will draw most of its white student body from a combination of parts of the Sylvan Hills and Oakbrook zones, and which is being built at a site mutually agreed to by all of the parties. (App. 124) Further, there is nothing in the Plan which would prohibit the busing of Stephens students to a new Stephens school. assuming that is even required. The prospect is doubtful because LRSD requires its students to walk to school if they live within two miles of the school. As pointed out by Joshua, Stephens is \"only\" nine blocks from Interstate 630 (Joshua brief at 59). If the new school were located on the freeway, but otherwise in reasonable proximity to old Stephens, the attendance zone for which is 13 blocks long (App. 112), LRSD would not be obligated to bus those children anyway. At page 12 of its brief LRSD represents that \"the parties\" did not intend to exclude the present Stephens site as a new school site. This is not correct. PCSSD's persistent objection 9to utilizing the old site, because of its doubts concerning its ability to recruit there, belies the inclusiveness of this representation. (Ad. p. 6, par. 6, 10, 11, 12, 14-15). It is further eroded by the consistent objections of the North Little Rock School District, articulated for the same reasons. (Ad. 16-17).) The Alleged PCSSD Veto This contention is once again an example of how little the appellants have to work with on this issue. All the District Court said about the PCSSD was that it \"must be satisfied with the site chosen\" (LRSD brief, p. 13), not that it had any direct veto. It is probably true that none of the Plans require that \"PCSSD must be satisfied with the site chosen for the new Stephens interdistrict school\" (LRSD brief, p. 13), but the mere articulation of this argument suggests a revival of the kind of arrogance which some ascribe to the LRSD. (See generally App. 172-180). In endorsing the concept that consensus was desired, this Court wisely observed when it initially approved the settlement plans, that:. This may be especially true in the present context  a protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties. especially the defendants. As a practical matter, a remedy that everyone agrees to is a lot more likely to succeed than one to which the defendants must be dragged kicking and screaming. 10Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1383 (Sth Cir.1990). There Was Wo Reason to Continue the June Hearing. Having determined that the old Stephens site was not a permitted site for the new Stephens interdistrict school, and having no other consensual sites before it, it would have been an exercise in futility for the District Court to continue a hearing devoted to whether the old site was an appropriate site. The literal terms of the order stated that the Court would conduct a hearing \"regarding a site for the Stephens interdistrict school\" (App. 100) [Emphasis added.] if the parties are unable to reach a consensus. The Court did not say it would conduct a further hearing regarding the old Stephens site\nindeed, its September 27, 1993, order specifically excluded the old Stephens site. Accordingly, there was then no present reason for a hearing and LRSD and Joshua were therefore deprived of nothing. On October 15, 1993, PCSSD and NLRSD submitted their preferred sites in rank order and those are pending before the District Court. (Ad. p. 18-21). The Court will undoubtedly conduct a hearing on alternative sites either during the pendency of this appeal, or, if the District Court believes it has been temporarily divested of jurisdiction on this issue, after return Ik of this Court's mandate. 11The Deference Argument is Misplaced. LRSD's and Joshua's reliance on cases such as Milliken, Swann and Liddell, and others cited at pages 14 and 15 of LRSD's brief, avail them nothing in the special circumstance of interdistrict schools. After all, it is clear from the Plans, and well known to this Court, that interdistrict schools are joint undertakings between the school districts and, except for the day-to-day operations of the schools, all other significant matters are to be jointly determined by the host and sending districts. (App. 124) Therefore, LRSD's and Joshua's reliance on these cases is pertinent only to the extent that the parties are in agreement on issues such as an appropriate school site. Only then would the teachings and instructions of these cases be apropos, and only if disagreements developed between the agreeing districts and the District Court, a prospect which has not yet emerged on this issue and is unlikely to occur. Stated another way, the holdings of these cases apply with equal force to the reasoned determinations and positions of the PCSSD as the sending district. Accordingly, PCSSD's consistent and well based opposition to the old Stephens site was appropriately given deference by the District Court and reinforces both her order and its underpinnings. 12CONCLUSION The order should be affirmed and this issue returned to the District Court so that a decision regarding an appropriate new site for Stephens near the 1-630 corridor can be made. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By__ _ M. S Atto Special\nuel\\ Jones, 111 (76060) neys/ for Pulasky County chool Di ct 13 On CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE April . 1994, a copy of the foregoing was served on: Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell \u0026amp; Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 G:ac31083.030 14 M. S. luel Jones, II ADDENDUMFILED U.S, OtSTRCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP 2 7 b'95 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CAaRrLl Rr.. BbRrI^T\nT^S,. CcLiERh EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By. 6/ OcP.Ct 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 2BCB By Order dated July 1, 1993, this Court granted the parties' request for an extension of ninety days in which to attempt to reach a consensus on a site for the new Stephens Interdistrict School [doc.#1878]. The Court further ordered the parties to submit an alternative site proposal for the new Stephens Interdistrict School by September 15, 1993, if they were unable to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, the parties have not been able to reach a consensus. The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), pursuant to a recommendation of the Stephens Site Selection Committee and subsequent approval by the LRSD Board of Directors, recommends that the new Stephens Interdistrict School be built in the immediate vicinity of the old Stephens school. The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") both object to the LRSD's recommendation.* Neither the Joshua Intervenors nor the Knight * The LRSD contends that the recommendation of the Stephens Site Selection Committee, as approved by the Board of Directon of the LRSD, constitutes s consensus of the represcntAbvei of the parties. Considering the pleadings filed by the PCSSD and the NLRSD regarding the new Stephens Interdistrict School, the Court does not consider the Coomittee's recommendation u constituting a consensus. Intervenors have responded, and the parties have failed to submit an alternative proposal on site for the new Stephens a Interdistrict School. Having carefully considered the matter, the Court hereby rejects the old Stephens school site as the location for the new Stephens Interdistrict School. Both the LRSD and Interdistrict desegregation plans, to which all parties agreed, anticipate that a new Stephens Interdistrict School will be built at a new site and that the old school will be closed: It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. (Emphasis added.) LRSD Desegregation Plan, at 139. LRSD will build a new Stephens Interdistrict School ... located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue ... The old Stephens school building will then be closed. Desegregation Plan, at 10. (Emphasis added.) Interdistrict Constructing the new Stephens Interdistrict School at the site of the old Stephens School will not further the goals of the desegregation plans. The Court recognizes that the plans say Stephens will be built \"near the 1-630 corridor,\" and that there is no set definition of what that phrase means. Although PCSSD has stated previously in Court and in filings that \"near the 1-630 corridor\" means within \"eye-shot\" of the interstate highway, there is no plan provision or other record that defines the geographic boundary that specifically. In any event, the plans clearly envision that the Stephens Interdistrict School be near 1-630. The current site of -2-the Stephens school is farther from 1-630 than any of the other proposed sites that lie between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition, the Court stresses that the success of the desegregation plans depends greatly upon voluntary interdistrict desegregation. The primary purpose of the interdistrict schools is to promote voluntary movement between the school districts to achiave desegregation and fulfill the plan commitments. Interdistrict schools must be given every chance for success by assuring that each school is as appealing as possible by virtue of such important variables as academic programs, location, accessibility, staff, facility and grounds, and safety. Because the PCSSD will bear the burden of recruiting white PCSSD students to Stephens (indeed, almost half the entire student body), PCSSD must be satisfied with the site chosen for the new Stephens Interdistrict School. Likewise, the NLRSD, while not presently to send students to the new Interdistrict school by virtue of the current racial makeup of the NLRSD's student population, is a party to the case and. as such, is committed to the plan's success, is responsible for helping to uphold the provisions of the agreements, and may eventually be able to send students to the new interdistrict school. NLRSD's objections therefore may not be dismissed. Because the plans clearly envision that the Stephens Interdistrict School be rebuilt near 1-630, and in light of the objections filed by the PCSSD and the NLRSD, locating the Stephens Interdistrict School at the site of the old Stephens school would 3-constitute a disputed modification of the plan. The Court finds that locating the stephens Interdistrict School at the current Stephens school site would not satisfy the standard for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a) consent decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions either effective have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree, modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. A Id. at 258, quoting vith approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court does not find a defect or deficiency in the plan which impedes the goals set forth therein, either because experience has proven it less effective or disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions have changed which warrant 11 fine-tuning\" the plan. The Court praises the work of the site selection committee for their efforts. and commends the Stephens community for their in the site selection process, for their interest in preserving and improving their neighborhood, and for supporting 2 Had there been a eonsenstu, the Court arguably could apply a leas itringent standard of review than that requited for disputed modiCcations. However, because the parties have been unable to reach a consensus, the Court need not address that iuue. -4-their neighborhood school. The Coxirt acknowledges the importance of community input, and has stressed that importance on many occasions, but points out that the purpose of the new interdistrict school is to promote interdistrict desegregation, not to help stabilize a neighborhood. While neighborhood preservation is certainly desirable and may be a worthy goal that can be fostered by a new school, it is not the primary goal that interdistrict schools are designed to achieve. In its July 1, 1993 Order, the Court directed the parties to submit alternative site proposals for the new Stephens Interdistrict School by September 15, 1993 if they were unable to reach a consensus, and set a hearing date of 30, 1993. Because the parties have not submitted an alternative proposal as ordered. the hearing scheduled for September 30, 1993, is cancelled. The parties are hereby given until and including October 15, 1993, in which to reach a consensus on an alternative site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The LRSD may not leave the old Stephens school building permanently vacant, but either must find a use for the building that benefits the community or ultimately demolish the facility if no community service can be found for it. The Court requires the LRSD to report to the ODM its plans for the building's use. IT IS so ORDERED this _7^ay of September 1993. ___________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5- ~'S DOCUME\u0026gt;r ,vr ?s?SO ON DOCKET SHEET IN jLE 58 AND/OR 73(a) FRCPFILED S.3-\"-CCCC\" i-x/a'SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 3 1993 JAFL R. 3REi'j  S LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ^?laintieW\" V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 1. MOTION TO RESCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION OF STEPHENS INTERDISTRTCT SCHOOL motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: In their original settlement agreement. the parties agreed that two new interdistrict schools would be constructed in LRSD and that the second school would be constructed two years after the first school \"or as soon as reasonably practicable\". J.D.R. 01731-34. The first interdistrict school. then called SK Stephens Elementary School, was to have been \"ready by the 1990-91 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable\". J.D.R. 1731-32. The second interdistrict school, then called King Elementary School, was supposed to have been constructed \"by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable\". J.D.R. 1733-34. The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, which required that the second interdistrict school be constructed two years following the first interdistrict school tt or as soon as reasonably practicable\" was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. LRSD V. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990). Ad. 6 8 6 0 2. The Interdistrict Desegregation Plan district approved by the court on May 1, 1992 requires that both Stephens Interdistrict School and King Interdistrict School be constructed by \"a date approved by the Court\". Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, pp. 10, 11. In their May 1, 1991 submission to the district court. the parties proposed that King Interdistrict School be constructed in time for the 1993-94 school year and that Stephens Interdistrict School be constructed in time for the 1994-95 school year. Mr. Bowles has testified on behalf of PCSSD that he believes that sufficient PCSSD white students can be recruited to King Interdistrict School in order to make that school desegregation success, but that he is unsure about how many years it will take before that happens. The court has directed PCSSD to 3. a prepare a recruitment plan for King Interdistrict 4. School. The recruitment of PCSSD students to Romine Interdistrict School has not yet been successful. The court has heard testimony that only eight PCSSD students attended Romine Interdistrict School during the 1992-93 school year. 5. The plan to desegregate the interdistrict schools located in LRSD depends upon the recruitment of PCSSD white students. In the absence of a reasonable likelihood that sufficient PCSSD students can be recruited to Stephens Interdistrict School in accordance with the desegregation plans agreed upon by the parties. the parties would either have to devise new plan for the a integration of the proposed Stephens Interdistrict School or face Ad. 7the prospect of constructing the school which could identifiable. remain racially 6. PCSSD has expressed concern about whether it can successfully recruit PCSSD students to Stephens Interdistrict School and has raised the issue of whether the construction of Stephens Interdistrict School should be rescheduled. Brief of PCSSD for Hearing Scheduled j\nune 8 , 1993 . Although PCSSD did not specifically address the problem of simultaneous recruitment for both Stephens and King, the recruitment issue should be resolved and a recruitment plan should be established before LRSD is required to invest millions of dollars in the construction of Stephens Interdistrict School. 7. The desegregation plans require that King and Stephens be constructed in generally the same area of the city of Little Rock. Until King is established as successful, desegregated interdistrict school, it will be difficult to recruit PCSSD students to Stephens. Moreover, any successful recruitment of a PCSSD students to Stephens could delay the desegregation of King. It makes better sense to firmly establish the first LRSD interdistrict school before placing in competition with it. a second interdistrict school 8. The prospects for successfully establishing two new interdistrict schools in LRSD will be better if the original idea of establishing the second school two years following the first 1) or as soon as reasonably practicable\" is reinstated. The practicability of building the second interdistrict school should Ad. 8depend upon the degree to which the other interdistrict schools in LRSD are desegregated. Stephens Interdist'rict School should be constructed when King Interdistrict School achieves the racial balance contemplated by the desegregation plan or when there exists some other evidence that sufficient PCSSD both Stephens and King can be recruited. students to desegregate WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the \"date approved by the Court\" for the construction of Stephens Interdistrict School in accordance with the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan be established as August, 1995 or as soon as reasonably practicable and that the parties be required to revisit the issue of practicability as soon as the results of the recruitment of PCSSD students to King Interdistrict School for the 1993-94 school year become known. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By Christopher Heller \u0026lt; Bar No. 81083 Ad. 9____ /  EDWARD L WRICHT 9O3-I9T7' ROBERT S LiNOSE* 93 I99\u0026gt; RQNAuO a may SAAC A SCOTT WRIGHT. LINDSEY -rlyer e m.y ATTORNEYS AT lIW I tRN DISTRICT ARKANS.4fi\n\" -------- \"l.TER E MAY .AMES M A JOHN G L GORDON S -e .R RR* L maTwewS CaviO m pOwCLl ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD wR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON ..ENNiNGS -R .,0HN R TISOAUE kathltn GRAVES M SAMUEL .ONES III .OhN WILLIAM SRIVEV KI uEC J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON JR EDGAR J TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER jR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L SCHLUMeERGER SAMMYE L TAYLOR Re: 2200 WORTHEN SANK SUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE i little rock. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 JUN a 7 1993 - \u0026lt;Er :gov t joncs MOBBISON \"HOMAS C COUR'WAV 9ETT:ha z BROwnstE'N WALTER McSPACOEN ROGER 0 ROWE (501) 371-1 Z\\a M nancy SELlhOUSE oa^RL R. BRENTS, CLERl^~?=v^\" r30 376 94. aS/-- OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE E LUSK jR June 7, 1993 LRSD V. PCSSD Exhibit List for June 8, 1993 Hearing The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court Judge U.S. District Courthouse Little Rock, Arkansas 77201 Dear Judge Wright: WAV lOV SIMMONS MCNffV DE?. JtfARK u PRYOR CLEA I?*'  J\" VI.C.-l\u0026gt;k,AI\u0026gt;RY S MUBR tlckcr lARRY S HUBST Ov A RR'Ce JR TRlClA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY JB KATHBYN t. PRYOR J MARK DAVIS KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS III WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O BARNES STEPHEN R LANCASTER The only PCSSD exhibits of which I am aware consist of two letters written during the last year which evidenced the PCSSD's concerns regarding locating the new Stephens Elementary School at the old Stephens Elementary School site. One of the letters was written by Mr. Bowles to the Little Rock School District. The second was a letter to Chris Heller from me which also expressed this concern. We will bring multiple copies of these two letters to the hearing tomorrow. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Jones III tB*i dasoN I MSJ:drl cc: All Counsel Office of Desegregation Monitoring J:drll073.030 Ad. 10 PCSSl March 9, 1993 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd: As you know, the Site Selection Committee formed to evaluate sites for construction of the new Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School has voted to recommend the old Stephen's site. When this was discussed as one of the options, PCSSD went on record at that hearing as having serious reservations concerning that site, particularly regarding student access and PCSSD's ability to recruit the necessary number of white students for a new school at that location. Unfortunately, nothing has occurred since that hearing which modifies our concerns. We trust our concerns will be expressed to your Board when they review the Site Selection Committee's recommendation. I recommend you seek Federal Court approval for Stephens and King elementary schools to be listed as interdistrict magnets. In my opinion, this would be excellent for recruitment purposes. Thank you very much. Sincerely Billy u. Bowles Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation ch c Mr. Bobby Lester Mr. Sam Jones Mrs. Ann Brown Ms. Marie Parker Ad. 11EDWARD L WRIGHT '1903 19771 ROBERT 9 LINDSEY . 19 AONAL SAAC - WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT UAW AMCS M JOHN G Lite jOV GOFOON S AATK.es JR. ERA* u MAThCwS OAViO M AOWCUU AOGEA A GLASGOW C DOUGLASSUFOAO JA  ATAlCA J GOSS ALSTON .eSNiNGS .\nA jOMN TISOALt aatmlvn CAavcs M SAMUEL .ONES III JOHN wiLL:am SAIVET \u0026gt;li LEE J MULOAOW WENDELL L GAtFFEN N M NOA7ON jA EDGAA J TVLEA CHAALES C AAlOE CKAALES T COLEMAN .AMES J GLOVEA EDWIN L LOWTHEA jA BEVEALY BASSETT SCHAFFER Charles l Schlumberger 2200 WORTMEN BANK BUIUOING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722013699 (501) 371-0808 FAX iSOn 378 9442 OF COUNSCL ALSTON GCOWQt t UUSK jif March 25, 1993 SAMMVf u avlOA aaltEA  MAy ANNA MiRAt Gibson Gregory t .,cnes M XEITW MOAA'SON NOMAS C COUATWA* BETTINA E BROWNSTEN WALTER MeSAAOOEN 0 AOWE nancy bellhouse may NATE COULTER JOHN O OAVlS JUDY Simmons henry ombeRly wood tucker MARK L RRYOA F COX jR HARRY S hurst JR TROY A RRtCE RATRiciA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY JR KATHRYN A J MARK DAVIS tamwcra Rankin harrclson KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODO wood  GREGORY ACLIN FRED M REAKINS UI WILLIAM STUAAT JACKSON Re: LRSD V. PCSSD r Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge fc Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 L Dear Chris: It is my understanding that your District Site Selection Committee will recommend to the LRSD Board of Directors that the old Stephens Elementary School site be construction of the new Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School. I wanted to reiterate that the PCSSD continues to have grave concerns regarding thia site, primarily associated with the PCSSD's belief that recruitment of white that school would be most difficult. tonight approved for PCSSD students to Further, the District does not believe that this site literally comports with the 1-630 corridor concept, x:_____L___ to understand how a school site this remote from Interstate could be regarded as within that corridor. We are hard-pressed 630 While I understand that any action your board takes this evening will be subject to review by the parties to the school desegregation case and cannot become final until submitted the court, we thought it appropriate to remind LRSD of the District's concerns in this matter. to Ad. 12WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS istopher 5, 1993 . Mr. Marc Page 2 Heller Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS --M. Sa: el Jones III MSJ:drl 54981 (iC. Ad. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT plaintiffs VS NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION REGARDING STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL 1. The PCSSD reaffirms the position it has previously taken regarding the siting of this school, which positions have been made in writing and stated on the record in recent hearings. 2. The PCSSD continues o believe that, as a matter of 3\nlaw, the Stephens School must be relocated to comport with the provisions of the desegregation plans approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. PCSSD believes that to justify retention of the present Stephens site reguires showing of substantially changed circumstances as reguired by a Rufo V. Inmates of The Suffolk County Jail 90-954, slip of. (U.S. January 15, 1992) (please see legal discussion of Rufo in PCSSD brief filed February 6, 1992). To date, PCSSD contends that no such showing has been made and it is unaware of any facts which would support such a showing. 3. The PCSSD continues to believe that retention of the present site will not promote voluntary recruiting to the school Ad. 14and that, as a result, prospects for assembling a desegregated student body are diminished and that revenues generated by M to M transfers will not be maximized. 4. The PCSSD is prepared to address these issues further should a hearing be required on this issue. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By. M^S*nuel VTones, (76060) attorneys Ifor Pula^i County /Special S/hool Dirict luel rict Ad. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 4 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. FFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 S. -v?o PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT POSITION REGARDING STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL 1. The North Little Rock School District endorses the position previously taken by the Pulaski County Special School District opposing the location of the Stephens Interdistrict School at the current location of the Stephens School in Little Rock. i 2. The NLRSD concurs with the PCSSD that, as a matter of law. the current Stephens School site does not comply with the provisions of the desegregation plans in that it lies outside the 1-630 corridor described in the plana. 3. Likewise, the NLRSD agrees that the current Stephens location will not be conducive to the voluntary recruitment of students from the PCSSD. 4. The position of the NLRSD is, and has been, that the recruitment of PCSSD students to the Stephens Interdistrict School xs a condition precedent to the consideration of any other site selection factor. Unfortunately, this does not appear to have occurred. Ad. 16 SEP i 7 13935. As the attached letter of September 7, 1993 reflects, there were several alternative sites which would have been acceptable to the North Little Rock School District but on information and belief none of these locations was chosen. Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TOBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (50JU 375-1122 47 S?-. September 16, 1993 By\nSt^hen W. J^es #78083 Ad. 17! EOWARO L WR'GHT 903 1977) ROBERT S LiNOSE* I9I3-I99I) RONALD A MAY SAAC A SCOTT JAMES M MOODY .OKN G uiLE GORDON S RATHER jR ERRV L MATHEWS CAV'D M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS aurORO jR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON jENNINGS jR ..OHN R TISOALE KATHLYN graves M SAMUEL JONES \u0026gt;11 wOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON jR EDGAR J TYLER CHARLES C PRICE Charles t coleman JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER JR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L. TAYLOR WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2200 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL avenue LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 PAX (501) 378-9442 or COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE  LUSK. jR October 15, 1993 t WALTER E MAY ANNA MIRAI Gibson GREGORY T jONES H KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E BROWNSTE'N - WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER O ROWE nancy BELLHOUSE MAY jOhn 0 DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER MARK L, PRYOR f COX jR HARRY S hurst JR TROY A PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY JR KATHRYN A PRYOR J MARK DAVIS KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J. GARNETT M TODO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS (I WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 BARNES STEPHEN R LANCASTER FRED ANDREW WOOD JUDY M ROBINSON Re: Stephens Interdistrict School Site The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Wright: The PCSSD prefers the following locations for the construction of Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School in the order shown below: 1. The Freeway Medical Towers site expanded to the east to Fairpark Boulevard. 2. The University Park site bounded by Rodney Parham to the west and the freeway to the north. 3. The Monarch Mill site. 4. The site behind Ricks Armory on the fringe of the UAMS campus. 5. The old Lee site which the PCSSD does not believe actually qualifies. Ad. 18 y^OSEY S JENNINGS Honorable Susan Webber Wright October 15, 1993 Page 2 we understand that the LRSD is seeking an additional 30 day Iio am/4 __1. . . gytpncinn ___ .--- an aaaizionai 30 dav tSr^eSeH!   \" objecnon to Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS \u0026lt; Samui Jones, III cc: Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Stephen Jones Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown MSJ:jdt j:lul30.Q30 Ad. 19 JACK. I VOX \u0026amp; Jones. ? ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCSY TOWER 42S WEST CAPITOL AVE.NUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3472 a- ?0 1)375-1 122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 OMea  11 Muse J.'c e Souff NasnviM* J\u0026lt;*2C3 61*. 2! e'ecocie' o'\n3-i66* 5. 2S9-46M October 15, 1993 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 RE: NLRSD V. PCSSD - Alternative Stephens School Location Dear Judge Wright: In response to your Order of September 27, 1993, the North Little Rock School District would propose the following alternative sites for the location of the Stephens Interdistrict Elementary School in the order presented: 1. The Arkansas Health Department site located north of Ricks Armory and east of the University of Arkansas Medical Center. 2. The site located south of 1-630 and north of 10th Street in the general area of the Freeway Medical - Tower. 3. The Hughes Street site located south of 1-630, north of 12th Street, east of Rodney Parham and west of Hughes Street. 4. The site of the former Monarch Mill. As a preliminary matter, however, we would suggest that it would be appropriate to reconsider whether a new interdistrict school should be built in light of the recent loss of students in the school districts. It may well be that circumstances have changed to such an extent that a new interdistrict school would be ill-advised at this time. As a result. it may be that the construction of such a school should be deleted from the Plan, or, alternatively, delayed for some period of time. Additionally, we would also suggest that it might be appropriate to build a new Stephens School on its current site to replace the present Stephens and Garland schools but to not designate that school as a interdistrict school. that the Desegregation Plan does require We would note the upgrading of facilities at incentive school sites\nthus, such a construction effort would be consistent with that aspect of the Plan. While this would require a Plan modification, it is a possibility that the parties might consider. Ad. 20  Jack. Lyon \u0026amp; Jones. ?,a. Honorable Susan Webber Wright October 15, 1993 Page 2 We have been advised by counsel for the Little HQVC ijeen aavisec Dy counsel for Little Rock School seek an extension of time in which the oarties could further explore reaching ----- School issue.  an extension. _ consensus regarding the Stephens The North Little Rock School District supports such SWJ/tr cc: Mr. James Smith All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown Very truly yours, 60 Stephen W. Jones Ad. 21Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p..a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW. 3400 TOBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3472 (501) 375-1 122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 Nashville Office \u0026lt;11 Music Circle South Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecopier (615) 259-4668 April 19, 1994 received APR 2 0 1994 Mr. Michael Gans, Clerk United States Court and Custom House 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Office of Desegregation Monitoring RE\nLittle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. 93-3592 Dear Michael: This letter is to advise the Court that it was the intention of the North Little Rock School District to join in the Brief for Appellee, Pulaski County Special School District. The PCSSD, in the Summary and Request for Oral Argument, does reflect that the NLRSD joins with it in presenting the position of Appellees. However, I wanted to ensure that the Court understood that the NLRSD joined PCSSD with respect to its entire Brief and not solely with respect to its position on oral argument. Your attention to this matter is very much appreciated. Very truly yours. Stephen W. Jones SWJ:le cc: Christopher Heller John Walker M. Samuel Jones III Richard Roachell Ann Brown Elizabeth Boyter\u0026gt; '/ -9 sr? V - NO. JAN s. .-994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 93-3592 OifiC3 of Dasegrsgaiicn fvlonitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK \u0026gt;i ' /acij SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE SECOND MOTION FOR APPELLANTS FOR EXTENSION OP TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEFS The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Briefs, stated that: 1. The Appellants' Briefs in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on January 27, 1994 . 2. Due to the press of business in counsels' office. an additional extension of time of two weeks is necessary in which to file the briefs for the Appellants. WHEREFORE, Appellants Dale Charles and the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through February 10, Respectfully submitted. 1994.I \\ I c^- David Schoen DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this _Y_ day of January, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 / ( / \\. David Schoenr 2 2 1994 i\nCuica o: \u0026gt;^1 n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASrlvi: WESTERN DIVISION ' 2 G 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 'A?. 5 ' 'PLfflNTIFF Ev: V. :Ri\u0026lt; 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 MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN For its motion, plaintiff. Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans require the establishment within LRSD of three interdistrict schools Romine, King and Stephens. The plans require that two of those schools. King and Stephens, be located in the downtown Little Rock area. Romine and King schools have been established as interdistrict schools. 2. Since the parties agreed that LRSD would establish the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in the downtown Little Rock area. there have been significant changes in factual conditions which warrant modification of that agreement. First, Washington Elementary School, which the parties agreed would be an incentive school. presently operates as an interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. Second, there has been a significant movement of population out of the area in which the parties plannedto locate interdistrict schools. The schools in that area are experiencing low enrollment. There are many empty seats, including seats at the King and Washington Interdistrict Schools. 3. The modification of the desegregation plans which is most suitably tailored to the changed circumstances is to recognize Washington in place of Stephens as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. This modification is in compliance with the standards for modification of consent decrees set out in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. ___, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD prays for modification of the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans to recognize Washington as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area and to delete the requirement that LRSD construct a new Stephens Interdistrict School. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B' Christopher He Bar No. 81083 er 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Modification of Desegregation Plan has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Hellec**^ 3 1. 2. 3. 4. LitUe Rock School Dislricl Stephens School Relocation Timeline Task File motion with Court to relocate students from Stephens School File revisions to current filings relating to Stephens which are before the courts________________________________________________________ Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors \u0026amp; approved Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected 5. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted 6. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 7. Inventory building____________________________________________ 8. Hold public meeting with Stephens community 9. Plan and schedule second public meeting with the Stephens community 10. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting for a) community groups and churches\nb) media c) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood_________________________ 11. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement of relocation and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting on June 21._________________________________ 12. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.____________________ 13. Design follow-up plan for students who do not choose a school. (D/scuss with Sterling Ingram)____________________________________ 14. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff________ 15. Compile mailing labels of all students scheduled to attend Stephen School for 1994-95.__________________________________________________ 16. Court approval granted________________________________________ 17. Mail notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) community groups and churches\nb) Media___________________________________________________ 18. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting of June 21. Include invite to community information meeting at Stephens School to answer questions about choices and the relocation. ____________ 19. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing relocation and information meeting 20. Implement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school_______________________________ 21. Mail assignment notices _______________________________ 22. Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline._______________________________________ 23. Remove materials and equipment from school 24. Reroute transportation of students 25. Secure building ___________________________________ 26. Reassign staff 27. Mail assignment notices to those responding late * Date 5/18/94 5/18/94 5/26/94 5/27/94 5/27/94 5/27/94 5/30/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/6/94 6/7/94 6/13/94* 6/13/94* 6/16/94* 7/6/94 7/15/94* 7/15/94* 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 7/31/94 8/1/94 Deadline is absolute. Timely notice is required because of promises made in court. Person Williams Williams Williams Ingram Modeste Williams Neal Modeste Wagner Wagner Wiedower Modeste Wiedower Modeste, Mayo Lee Williams Wagner Lee Wagner Ingram Lee Lee Neal Montgomery Eaton Hurley Lee r1 iiaa a \nIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Offico of Ocsegri UCil iVr 'J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed ............................................... 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1STATEMEKT OF THE CASE I. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ISSUE. A. Previous LRSD Election Zones. The district court approved seven single-member zones for the election of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Board of Directors on December 18, 1986. Appellant's App. p. 50. Before that time, LRSD board members were elected in at-large elections. Arkansas law requires, however, that school districts with student populations in excess of 24,000 elect board members from single- member zones. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 (Michie 1991). Pursuant to previous orders of this Court and the district court. LRSD annexed territory of the Pulaski County Special School District which increased LRSD's student population above 24,000 and was required by state law to establish single-member zones. The LRSD zone plan approved by the district court had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 census: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\n7.83% black\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30 black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10% black. 1The district court found that the zone plan \"comports with the one- man one-vote principle required by the Constitution . . . [and is] in compliance with the mandate of Amended  2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C.  1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" Appellant's App., p. 50-51. The district court's December 18, 1986, order approving the LRSD zone plan was not appealed. The Charles Plaintiffs, as members of the class represented by the Joshua Intervenors, were parties to the case when the zones were established. LRSD App., p. 1. In fact, Mr. Charles was substituted as a named plaintiff when he became president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP. LRSD B. The PCBE Plan. App., p. 4 . The Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\") plan for LRSD election zones was prepared by Metroplan, a non-profit corporation whose members are local governmental entities in the central Arkansas area. LRSD App., p. 41. Metroplan was asked to determine whether the previous LRSD election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man. one-vote\" principle according to 1990 census data and, if so, to prepare alternative proposals for rezoning LRSD in compliance with federal law. LRSD App., p. 42. Jim McKenzie, the Executive Director of Metroplan, was primarily responsible for preparing the proposals. LRSD App., pp. 76-77. Before preparation of alternative proposals for submission to PCBE, Mr. McKenzie contacted Jim Lynch, who became the Charles Plaintiffs' expert in this case, concerning criteria which should 2be considered in preparing election zones. Lynch provided McKenzie a written list of five criteria: (1) adhere to the one-man, one- vote doctrine\n(2) avoid diluting minority political expression\n(3) districts ought to be compact and contiguous\n(4) district boundaries should be recognizable\nand, (5) use existing political boundaries. LRSD App., pp. 9, 76-77. McKenzie followed Lynch's criteria in developing four alternative proposals for rezoning the Little Rock School District. LRSD App., pp. 77-80. McKenzie was aware of the December 18, 1986, order stating that the previous LRSD election zones were in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. LRSD App., p. 40. II. THE DESEGREGATION PLAN MODIFICATION ISSUE The parties to this case are in the process of implementing desegregation plans agreed upon in 1989 and approved by this Court in 1990.* The Interdistrict and LRSD Desegregation Plans call for eight racially isolated incentive schools but do not require that each incentive school must remain open in perpetuity. Instead, a purpose of those plans is to move LRSD black students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools: There are four desegregation plans, district and an Interdistrict Plan. one for each school The plans were modified in For a history of the development of the desegregation plans and the 1989 settlement agreement, see Little Rock School District 1991. V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). 3\"As new interdistrict schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to incentive school . . an It LRSD App., p. 331. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. The planned effort to move students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools is illustrated by the parties' agreement about Stephens school. Stephens is one of the eight incentive schools established under the 1989 plans. LRSD App., pp. 331, 334 . Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. The plans require the parties to quickly convert Stephens from an incentive school to an interdistrict school and to close \"[t]he old Stephens school building.\" LRSD App., pp. 332, 334. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 10\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. Washington Elementary School provides another example of the transition from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The 1989 desegregation plans list 4 . Washington among the eight incentive schools. (8 J.D.R. 1722\n10 J.D.R. 2288), but the parties later agreed that Washington would become an Interdistrict Magnet School.^ 2 The district court rejected the settlement plans on June 27, 1989 and, during the pendency of the appeals of that order, approved a substitute plan known as the Tri-District Plan (Docket The Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 #1328). school year, and Washington operated under that plan as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Following this Court's approval of the 1989 settlement plans, the parties agreed that Washington should continue to operate interdistrict magnet school rather that resume operation as racially isolated incentive school. - - as racially balanced Docket #1434. a a 4The plans and agreements of the parties to date will reduce the number of incentive schools from eight to six by moving incentive school students to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The assignment of Ish attendance zone students to King Interdistrict School is the first movement of students from a segregated to an integrated school which has been opposed by any party. LRSD committed to build a new King Interdistrict School \"in downtown Little Rock ... in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University LRSD App., P- LRSD Avenue.\" 334. Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. That area is populated primarily by students who are enrolled or are entitled to be enrolled in an incentive school. The specific site within that area was approved by the district court on March 17, 1992 (LRSD App. , p. 227. Docket #1576) and no appeal was taken from that order. Each LRSD school. including each incentive school. has an attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 310-313. The zone established for each new elementary school required by the desegregation plans must be superimposed upon the existing zone plan and will necessarily counsel for the Joshua Intervenors told the district court: \"I'm suggesting that integration by itself is just unacceptable to black people at this time. It has to be something that is much more substantive than merely being in the same environment with white students.\" LRSD App., p. 292. 5usurp some or all of the attendance zone of one or more of the existing elementary schools. LRSD hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller to design an attendance zone for King Interdistrict School. LRSD App. , p. 301. Dr. Thalmueller is a former employee of LRSD who has been involved in the preparation of LRSD attendance zones for seventeen years (LRSD App., p. 301) and who prepared the attendance zones for the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan. (LRSD App., p. 283). In drawing the King attendance zone, Thalmueller engaged in an effort \"to minimize the impact of the attendance zone on other students in the district. try to keep the domino effect down to the smallest possible factor . . [and] to reduce busing to whatever extent we could\". LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller also tried to draw the King zones so that students whose assignments were changed as a result of the establishment of that zone would not have to endure a second change of assignment when zones were later established for the Stephens Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller prepared three plans. reviewed them with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and presented them to LRSD. LRSD App., pp. 303-304. In the plan adopted by the LRSD Board of Education, Dr. Thalmueller placed the entire Ish zone, consisting of six zone blocks, in the King attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 335-336. The only schools whose attendance zones were changed by the Thalmueller plan are Ish, Jefferson, Rightsell and Washington. LRSD App., pp. 335, 336. 6One hundred eighty-three students were enrolled at Ish for the 1992-93 school year. Ninety of those students were from outside the Ish attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 3 08. There were 229 students in the Ish attendance zone. June 8, 1993 LRSD App., p. 307. Only 93 of those students attended Ish school. LRSD App., p. 307. The others attended schools throughout LRSD. Dr. Thalmueller and LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker prepared a report on the impact of the King attendance zone (LRSD App., p. 321) which was presented to the LRSD board, shared with all counsel on March 12, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 325) and presented to the District Court on June 8, 1993. The report describes the following impact upon Ish: \"Ish will remain open unless fewer than one hundred students choose Ish, in which case all Ish students will be assigned to King, and Little Rock School District will work with the Ish community to determine an appropriate use for the Ish building.\" LRSD App., p. 321. Four community meetings, including one at Ish school. were held in March, April and May 1993 \"to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration of attendance zones and theme selection for Martin Luther King, Jr. school\". LRSD App., p. 337. Surveys were mailed to all families affected by the location of the proposed attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 320. The King attendance zone was approved by the LRSD Board of Directors on April 22, 1993. On May 5, 1993 LRSD moved for approval of the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 231. Docket #1820. Joshua opposed LRSD's motion. LRSD App., p. 235. Docket #1825. The North Little Rock 7School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Knight Intervenors did not oppose the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 305. The district court conducted hearings on June 8 and 9, 1993 and approved the King attendance zone as drawn by Dr. Thalmueller, but not LRSD's plan for determining whether Ish should be closed. LRSD App., pp. 285-291. The court preferred Thalmueller's plan to the ideas presented by Dr. James Jennings, another former LRSD employee, because Thalmueller's plan would impact fewer attendance zones and because his plan \"left room for doubt\" concerning the 4 future location of the Stephens site. The district court announced that it would order that Ish remain open i-f one hundred or more students chose to attend Ish from among the students within the Ish attendance zone whether or not presently enrolled at Ish (229 students (LRSD App., p. 307)) and all students attending Ish whether or not residing within the Ish attendance zone (90 students (LRSD App., p. 308)) LRSD App., pp. 286-287. 4\u0026lt; Dr. Jennings was subpoenaed only a few days before the hearing and had not previously reviewed Thalmueller's plan. During his previous employment with LRSD, Jennings had prepared a plan to create attendance zones for King and Stephens together. p. 279. LRSD App., Jennings' testimony consisted of his recollection of the plan he had previously prepared on the assumption that King and Stephens zones would be established at the same time. and his reaction to Thalmueller' s plan which he had seen for the first time the day before. LRSD App., pp. Jennings' proposals would impact the attendance zones of thirteen schools. 281-283. 280. LRSD App. , p. Jennings worked with Thalmueller to prepare the attendance zones contained in the 1989 desegregation plan (LRSD App., p. 283) and considers Thalmueller competent to prepare attendance zone plans (LRSD App., 284). 8The court's bench ruling was followed closely by a written order (Docket #1848) which established the following process by which LRSD could attempt to \"meet its burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School\" from among those attending Ish or residing in the Ish attendance zone and \"proving that fewer than 100\" of those students wished to attend Ish: \"Within ten days from June 9, 1993 the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close.\" June 11, 1993 Order, Docket #1848. The court told Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. 293-300) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\". June 11, 1993 Order, p.3 LRSD filed on June 21, 1993 its proposed survey of potential Ish students and its plan for implementing the survey results^. LRSD proposed \"to send the form letter, the King and Ish fact sheets. and the School Selection Form to the parents of all students described in the court's June 11, 1993 Order in accordance with the attached time line for implementing King/Ish Survey Process.\" LRSD App., p. 240. No one objected to the process ^LRSD's filing showed exactly how the survey process would be It included a time line, a form letter to parents of potential Ish students, fact sheets on both King and Ish Schools which would be sent to potential Ish students and a school implemented. selection form. to potential students LRSD App., p. 240. 9proposed by LRSD. The district court approved the process on June 30, 1993. Docket No. 1873. LRSD engaged in an extensive effort to inform potential Ish students about King and Ish Schools and to maximize the response to its King/Ish survey!^. Two hundred sixty survey forms were mailed, 173 were returned and 82 students requested Ish School. LRSD App., p. 271-272. Based upon the results of the survey, LRSD moved on July 19, 1993 to close Ish School. LRSD App., p. 268. Docket No. 1908. Joshua opposed LRSD's status report about the survey process (LRSD App., p. 265) and LRSD's Motion to close Ish School (Docket No. 1918). On August 2, 1993, the district court granted LRSD's Motion to close Ish School. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.  1973, IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. The Charles Plaintiffs contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, the Charles Plaintiff were required to establish the *LRSD conducted a series of community meetings, including two at Ish School. Fliers announcing the community meetings were delivered door to door and distributed to local churches. Ish patrons conducted a door to door campaign encouraging parents to return the survey forms. The LRSD student assignment office telephoned parents who were sent survey forms and encouraged them to complete and return the forms. LRSD App., pp. 271-272. 10following four elements: (1) that blacks are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) that blacks are politically cohesive\n(3) that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat blacks' preferred candidate\nand, (4) that based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nThornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 25, 50- 51 (1986) . The district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish each of the above elements. The PCBE plan contains two majority black zones. Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to prove that three majority black zones can be created. In addition, the majority black zones must have at least a 65% black majority to enable blacks to elect their preferred candidate. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988). Each of the three majority black zones in the plan advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs has majority black population of less than 65%. As a result, the district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that three majority black LRSD zones with a 65% black majority population can be created. The Charles Plaintiffs attempted to establish black political cohesiveness through statistical proof of the correlation a coefficient comparing the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate. However, the 11correlation coefficient does not establish the percentage of black support for black candidates. The Charles Plaintiffs did not undertake the additional statistical analysis necessary to establish black political cohesiveness, and therefore, the district court held that they had failed to establish this element. The Charles Plaintiffs' attempt to establish white bloc voting was infected with the same statistical flaw. In addition. persistent proportional representation of blacks on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiff to establish white bloc voting. Nash V. Blunt, 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992). Evidence of elections between White and black candidates demonstrates that white voters do not usually vote as a block to defeat the blacks' preferred candidate. Accordingly, the district could found that LRSD did not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. Finally, the district court held that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the PCBE plan than they had under the previous zone plan which had been approved by the district court in 1986. The Charles Plaintiffs' expert testified that the opportunity of blacks is the same under the PCBE plan and under the previous court approved plan. The findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous and should be affirmed. 12A. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ACT, 42 U.S.C. SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. Introduction. A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS  1973, IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND No plan for single-member election zones is immune from challenge under the Voting Rights Act. If a plan concentrates minorities into super-majority zones. the plan may be said to dilute minority voting strength through \"packing.\" If a plan does not create the maximum number of minority black zones, it may be said to dilute minority voting strength through dispersion of minority voters. Compare Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196 (E.D.Ark. 1989), and Jeffers v. Tucker. 839 F.Supp. 612 (E.D.Ark. 1993) . PCBE adopted a Metroplan proposal for LRSD election zones which has two majority black zones. The Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of LRSD election zones to create a third majority black zone. In discussing the racial gerrymandering of election zones, the Supreme Court has stated: Racial classifications of any sort pose the risk of lasting harm to our society. They reinforce the belief, too many for too much of history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. history The Charles Plaintiffs argued before the district court that the PCBE plan violated the Voting Rights Act due to \"packing.\" _ . . ----------- -----' In this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time an argument based on the dispersion of black voters. PCBE adopted Metroplan proposal No. 4. 13Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial gerrymandering even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions\nit threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer mattersa goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody. and to which the Nation continues to aspire. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. Shaw V. Reno. 509 U.S. 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993). B. Discussion. 1. Liability Under Section 2 Generally. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was If designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.\" South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966). As amended in 1982, Section 2 of the Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . fl 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1993). Section 2 further states: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if. the circumstances, based on the totality of it is shown that political processes leading to nomination the or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in political process and to elect the representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office political subdivision is in one the State or circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to 14have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion population. in the 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993) (emphasis in original). In order to prevail on a Section 2 claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. Ill S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991). The Supreme Court has stated that a minority group challenging single-member election zones under Section 2 must establish three \"necessary preconditions\": First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a If it is not, as would be the single-member district. case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member If the electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests, [citations omitted]. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as bloc to enable circumstances, such it as in the absence of special a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the preferred [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member candidate. minority's district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. a Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 50-51\nGrowe v. Emison. ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. , 122 L.Ed.2d 388, 404. Satisfaction of these three \"preconditions\" is necessary. but not sufficient, to establish liability under Section 2. Growe. 507 U.S. at ___, 122 L.Ed.2d at 15404\nChisom. 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364\nsee League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements. 999 F.2d 831, 848 (Sth Cir. 1993). Therefore, in order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must demonstrate that (1) the group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) it. is politically cohesive\n(3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate\nand. (4) based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" the group has less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the challenged electoral device. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nGinqles. 478 U.S. at 50-51. 2. Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact. The plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE contains two majority-minority zones. LRSD App., p. 8 . Thus, in the context of the present case, the first Gingles precondition requires that the Charles Plaintiffs establish that the black population of LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a \"majority II in three LRSD election zones. Gingles. 478 U.S. at 50. More than mere numerical superiority must be considered in determining whether the Charles Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient \"majority II in single-member zone to elect representatives of their choice. As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 a F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% frequently used. of total population is and is derived by 16supplementing simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F,2d 106, 110 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the black population in LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to permit creation of three zones with at least 65% minority population. Otherwise, the PCBE plan for a LRSD election zones \"cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 50. Each of the purported \"majority\" black zones proposed by the Charles Plaintiffs falls below the 65% guideline. Under the Charles Plaintiffs' plan, 81% of the blacks who live within the boundaries of the LRSD would be packed into zones 1, 2 and 6 resulting in percentage black populations in those zones of 64.7%, 64.0% and 61.7%, respectively. The remaining black population is dispersed among the remaining four zones. Appellant's App., p. 55. 9 Therefore, the plan for LRSD election zones advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs demonstrates that the black population in LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute Charles Plaintiffs' Zone 1 has percentage population variance of negative 4.5%, and therefore, will in all probability be the first zone to fall out of compliance with the requirement. LRSD App., p. 74. \"one-man. one-vote\" Metroplan proposal No. 4 adopted by PCBE took into account present demographics trends by placing more persons in zones with declining population and by placing fewer persons in zones with increasing population. This was done within the limits prescribed by the law and with a lesser degree of population variance than provided in the Charles plaintiffs' plan. LRSD App., pp. 78-80. 17a sufficient \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Appellant's App., p. 155. Furthermore, McKenzie testified that the Charles' Plaintiffs plan did not present compact zones. LRSD App. , P- 61. Accordingly, the district court found, \"The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 7. The district court's finding that the black population of LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in three LRSD election zones is not clearly erroneous. 3. Political Cohesiveness. In an effort to establish black political cohesiveness. Lynch computed the correlation coefficient (the \"r\" statistic) and the r- square value for all 65 voting precincts in LRSD. Lynch compared the percentage of black voting age population within the precinct and the percentage of votes for the black candidate for ten elections involving a black candidate and a white candidate. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. Relying only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Lynch concluded that blacks were politically cohesive. Appellant's App., P. 160. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 does not support Lynch's conclusion. The correlation coefficients calculated by Lynch and summarized in Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no proof that 18blacks are politically cohesive.* The correlation coefficient is a measure of consistency. LRSD App., p. 134. See Citizens for a Better Gretna v, City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1987)\nsee. generally. Richard Engstrom Micheal McDonald, \"Quantitiye Evidence in Vote Dilution Litigation: Political \u0026amp; Participation and Polarized Voting,\" 17 Urban Lawyer 369 (1985). A perfect positive correlation (i.e., a correlation coefficient of one) between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate results where, for example, the same percentage of blacks and the same percentage of white voters support the black candidate in each precinct.\" If 25% of the black voters and 20% of the white voters in each precinct support the black candidate. perfect positive correlation exists. The correlation coefficient provides no a evidence of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Thus, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 indicates only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Lynch conceded that the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no information about the is nevertheless important to note that the only LRSD zone election analyzed by Lynch produced no significant correlation between black voting age population and support for the black candidate. Appellant's App., p. 157. \"Lynch's feeble understanding of the correlation coefficient was demonstrated when on cross-examination Lynch was unable to describe circumstances which would produce a perfect positive correlation. Lynch testified that he merely entered the data into a computer equipped with software to calculate the correlation coefficient. LRSD App., p. 165. 19percentage of black support for the black candidate. LRSD App., p. 158. Lynch admitted that nothing in his analysis excluded the possibility that only 25% of the black voters supported the black candidate in the elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., p. 161. Lynch acknowledged that, if only 25% of the blacks supported a black candidate, blacks could not be considered politically cohesive. LRSD App., p. 159. In order for the correlation coefficient or r-square value to demonstrate political cohesiveness. they must be used in conjunction with homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis. S^, e^, Whitfield v. Democratic Party of the State of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1383 (E.D.Ark. 1988)\nCitizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1987). Homogeneous precinct analysis is the examination of a precinct which is overwhelmingly populated by a discrete group to determine what percentage of voters in that group support a particular candidate. See Campos v. City of Baytown. 840 F.Supp. 124 0, 1246 n.lO (5th Cir. 1988). For example, if a precinct is 100% black and the black candidate gets 90% of the votes in that precinct, then 90% of the black voters preferred the black candidate. If there is also a high correlation coefficient among all the precincts (meaning that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct), it may be appropriate to conclude that approximately 90% of black voters in each precinct supported the black candidate. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 371-72. 20Regression analysis involves the calculation of the regression coefficient, commonly reported as It is the regression \"b\". coefficient \"that illuminates the degree to which voting patterns are racially differentiated. Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, P- 375. Whereas the correlation coefficient measures how consistently the electoral support for the black candidate changes with the percentage of black voting age population. the regression coefficient estimates how closely the change in percentage of votes for the black candidate tracks the change in percentage black voting age population. For example, where voting is completely racially polarized, the percentage of votes for the black candidate would track perfectly the increase in black voting age population. 12 See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 375. Therefore, homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis are necessary to establish racially polarized voting. Lynch testified that he did not conduct homogeneous precinct analysis. LRSD App., p. 164. With regard to regression analysis. Lynch testified, \"I'm not familiar with that term. 11 LRSD App., p. 163 . As a result. Lynch's conclusion that LRSD elections are racially polarized is without foundation. The correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 demonstrate '^The regression coefficient is to be distinguished from the square value calculated by Lynch. The r-square value is merely the square of the correlation coefficient. The regression coefficient (\"b\") represents the slope of the regression line, regression line is the line which minimizes the deviations among samples. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the samples' deviation from the regression line. With a perfect correlation, either positive or negative, the samples fall perfectly along the regression line. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. samples. r- The The See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. 21only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provides no indication of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Because the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks are politically cohesive, their Section 2 claim must fail.'* 4 . White Bloc Vote. a. Persistent Proportional Representation. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice White, noted in Ginoles that \"persistent proportional representation is inconsistent with [the] allegation that the ability of black voters ... to elect representatives of their choice is not equal to that enjoyed by the white majority.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 77. With regard to this statement by Justice Brennan, Justice O'Conner, joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell and Justice Renquist, wrote. \"I *The conclusion that blacks are politically cohesive can be drawn based on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 only if it is assumed that black voters preferred the black candidate. However, the Supreme Court has stated that minority support for the minority candidate \"never can be assumed, but must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of  2.\"  -- ___, 125 L.Ed.2d at 532. Shaw V. Reno. 509 U.S. at 'There is one other notable limitation on the value of the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and percentage of votes for the black candidate does not preclude the possibility of an equally strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and any of the other factors which Lynch testified often determine the outcome of elections. For example, the correlation coefficient between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the democratic candidate may be as strong or stronger, in as the correlation coefficients shown on any given election, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., pp. 170-171. 22agree with Justice Brennan that consistent and sustained success by candidates preferred by minority voters is presumptively inconsistent with the existence of a  2 violation.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 102 (O'Conner, J., concurring). After considering the above guoted language in Ginqles. the court in Nash v. Blunt. 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992), concluded, \"If defendants can prove prior persistent proportional representation, it would be virtually impossible for the plaintiffs to prove white voters usually vote together to defeat minority-preferred candidates.\" Recognizing that Ginqles provides that \"proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a  2 claim. Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 75, the court in Nash reasoned that persistent proportional representation would constitute a defense* to a Section 2 claim only where. in addition to a history of proportional representation, there exists a substantial likelihood that proportional representation would continue in the future. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1498. For example, the plaintiffs in Na^ challenged the Missouri legislative redistricting plan as it H applied to Jackson County, Missouri. The court noted that \"during the past decade, the proportion of black legislators for Jackson County has been in almost exactly equal proportion to the The court in Nash describes representation as an \"affirmative defense.\" persistent proportional This is a misnomer. A true affirmative defense relieves a defendant of liability even though the plaintiff has established each element of his claim. The classic example is the statute of limitations. However, persistent proportional representation, in effect, makes it \"virtually impossible\" to prove a necessary element of a Section 2 claim, legally significant white bloc voting. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1498. 23proportion of black citizens living in Jackson County.\" Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The court found that the proportion of majority black districts created under the challenged plan was roughly equal to the proportion of black population and concluded: Thus, we conclude that there has been at least a ten-year history of proportional representation, as well as a near certain likelihood that there will be proportional representation for the next decade. Therefore, we find the defendants have successfully proved the elements of this affirmative defense. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The facts of the present case are remarkably similar to the facts before the court in Nash. Blacks constitute 29.1% of the voting age population of LRSD. LRSD App., p. 6. There are seven members of the LRSD Board of Directors. Thus, proportional representation would be two of the seven board members or 28.6% of the board. Since 1983, the racial composition of the LRSD Board of Directors has been as follows: 1983 to March 1987 - two blacks. five whites\nMarch 1987 to June 1988 - three blacks, four whites\nand, June 1988 to present - two blacks, five whites. Therefore, since 1983, the proportion of black members of the LRSD Board of Directors has been equal to or greater than the proportion of black members of the electorate. Moreover, under the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE, blacks are virtually certain to be proportionally represented in the future. The PCBE plan contains two black majority zones. PCBE Zones 1 and 2 have percentages of black population of 79.82% and 59.39%, respectively. LRSD App., p. 8. Although PCBE Zone 2 falls below the 65% guideline discussed in 24Smith V. Clinton, supra, Lynch testified that blacks would be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of 60%, 104. Lynch specifically referred to North LRSD App. , p. Little Rock election zones with percentage black populations of 59.4% and 58.8% in which black candidates have been successful. LRSD App., P 11. Therefore, blacks will continue to be proportionally represented on the LRSD Board of Directors under the PCBE plan. The consistent and sustained past, along with the certain future, of proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiffs to establish legally significant white bloc voting. Nash, 797 F.Supp. 1500. b. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The Charles Plaintiffs substantially relied on the testimony of Lynch in an attempt to establish white bloc voting. Lynch calculated the correlation coefficient and the rsquare value comparing the percentage of white voting age population to the percentage of votes for the white candidate for same ten elections analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. Appellant's App. , P. 158. Based only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33, Lynch concluded that the white majority voted sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the candidate 25preferred by blacks. 16 LRSD App., p. 149. Again, the record does not support this conclusion. As with Lynch's reliance on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 to establish black political cohesiveness, the correlation coefficients and r-square values shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 demonstrate only that approximately the same percentage of whites preferred the white candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 provides no information concerning the actual percentage of white voters who preferred the white candidate. Lynch failed to conduct the concomitant homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis necessary to make Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 meaningful. c. Legally Significant White Bloc Voting. Black electoral success in LRSD and the City of Little Rock supports the district courts's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. To establish legally significant white bloc voting under Gingles, the minority group \"must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable itin the absence of special circumstances such as a minority candidate running unopposed usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Gingles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). Stated another way, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of 'in his deposition taken the day before his trial testimony. Lynch stated that he had undertaken no study, and therefore could offer no opinion, on the issue of whether white bloc voting worked to usually defeat the candidate preferred by blacks. Lynch changed his testimony at trial.  LRSD App., pp. 148-151. 26minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 56 (emphasis supplied). It is the \"usual predictability of the majority success [that] distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). See Whitcomb v. Chavis. 403 U.S. 124, 153. The Charles' Plaintiffs failed to establish the \"usual predictability\" of white candidate success necessary to establish white bloc voting. As discussed above, blacks have enjoyed proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors since 1983. Likewise, blacks have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. Appellant's App., p. 161-62. See Leadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 590 (E.D. Ark. 1980). In sum, white voters do not sufficiently vote as a bloc to \"usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Ginqles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). In 1966, Dr. T.E. Patterson was elected at-large against white opposition to become the first black member of the LRSD Board of Directors. In 1983, Bill Hamilton, a black. defeated a white opponent by winning 70% of the vote in an at-large election. LRSD App., p. 12. In 1986, Thomas Broughton, a black and current PCBE member, garnered 74% of the at-large vote in LRSD to defeat a white opponent. LRSD App., p. 20. In a 1989 Zone 2 election, Hamilton 27received 84% of the vote to defeat a white opponent. 17 LRSD App., p. 36. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 also reveal significant black electoral success in LRSD. Those exhibits examined ten races in the City of Little Rock which pitted a black against a white opponent. The black candidate won six of the ten races, including the only two LRSD elections shown on those exhibits. LRSD App., p. 152. Moreover, the two LRSD elections had the lowest correlation coefficients of the ten elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. In fact. Lynch testified that the correlation coefficient for the 1989 election of Hamilton was not statistically significant. LRSD App., p. 142. This was the only election analyzed by Lynch under the previous singlemember election zones. Evidence of exogenous elections in the City of Little Rock further demonstrates the considerable success of black candidates. Blacks won four of the eight races analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 which did not involve LRSD. Appellant's App., pp. 110-11, 157, 161. Similarly, the black candidate prevailed over white opposition in nine of the twenty-three contests for the City of Little Rock Board of Directors shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 35. Appellant's App., p. 161-162. As noted above, blacks In the only other LRSD election involving a black and a white since the implementation of election zones, Charles Young, a white, defeated Lawrence Hampton, a black. The race was to represent Zone 6 which at the time was 72.7% white. Even so. Young defeated Even so. Hampton by only 32 votes. This race was excluded from Charles Plaintiff's Exhibits 32 and 33. LRSD App., p. 35. 28have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. More importantly, the success of black candidates in LRSD and the City of Little Rock cannot be attributed solely to \"special circumstances. See Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 47. The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"All of the black electoral successes in the LRSD and Little Rock City Board elections were won under 'special circumstances' II Brief of Appellant's, p, 34. However, as the Charles Plaintiffs define \"special circumstances,\" it is equally true that all of the black electoral failures in LRSD and City of Little Rock elections were the result of \"special circumstances.\" For example, the Charles Plaintiffs describe the black majorities in LRSD Zones 1 and 2 as \"special circumstances.\" It follows then that the failure of a black candidates in a white majority zone would also be attributable to \"special circumstances. **It is worth noting that another \"special circumstance\" referred to by the Charles Plaintiffs was support by the \"white power structure. tl Lynch testified that black candidates Charles Bussey, H.D. Stewart and Jesse Mason were supported by the \"white in power structure\" races for City Board positions. Lynch testified that the only white candidate who was strongly supported by the \"white power structure\"  Board race. was Gary Barket in the 1992 City Barket lost the race and, in fact, received only 300 more votes (7299 to 6999) than Gloria Wilson, a black, whom Lynch described as eintithetical to the \"white power structure.\" Thus, the \"white power structure\" described by Lynch has been able to elect its candidate only when that candidate is black. And, if the Court testimony regarding the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Bussey, Stewart and Mason were also the preferred candidates of African accepts Lynch's Americans. LRSD App. pp. 186-191. 29Lynch acknowledged that many factors other than race determine the outcome of elections. LRSD App., p. 129. These other factors \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections. It Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J. , concurring). The Charles Plaintiffs should be required to prove that its asserted reasons for any alleged failure by blacks to elect representatives of their choice cannot be characterized as a \"mere euphemism for political defeat at the polls,\" Whitcomb. 403 U.S. at 153\nsee Clements. 999 F.2d at 859. Indeed, one of these other factors explains the 1983 loss by Dr. Mitchell, black current member of the LRSD Board of a Directors, to a white opponent, Frank Mackey, in her first attempt to gain election to the board. Mitchell testified that name recognition had a \"great deal\" to do with her 1983 loss to Mackey. LRSD App., p. 210-211. Mackey's father, after whom Mackey was named, had been twice elected to Pulaski County Sheriff and twice elected County Judge for Pulaski County. LRSD App., p. 211. All of LRSD is within Pulaski County. However, in the same election in which Dr. Mitchell lost to Mackey, Hamilton, a black. was elected to the LRSD Board of Directors with 70% of the vote over a white opponent. LRSD Appendix, p. 12. Both Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell competed districtwide for at-large positions on the LRSD Board. Hence, many of the same voters, black and white alike, voted for Hamilton, but not for Dr. Mitchell. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that 30whites \"usually\" vote as a bloc to defeat the preferred candidate of blacks. 19 Similarly, Lynch testified that the election of Dr. Hamp Roy to the City of Little Rock Board of Directors over black opposition was due to large amount of money spent by Dr. Roy to win election. In Lynch's own words, \"Dr. Roy just spent an unbelievable amount of money to get that job.\" Lynch agreed that Dr. Roy's election was a \"special situation.\" LRSD Supp., p. 188. Thus, black electoral defeat in LRSD and the City of Little Rock has resulted from the same \"special circumstances\" which the Charles Plaintiffs argue account for black electoral success. The district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting should be affirmed. 5. ir * Opportunity to Participate and to Elect. a. Less Opportunity\nThe Benchmark. As the final element of their Section 2 claim, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish that, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity than other '^Hamilton testified that it takes only about 300 votes to win an election within the current LRSD election zones. Hamilton's zones. testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5 which show the results for the 1987 and 1989 LRSD elections. In the 1987 Zone 6 election, Charles Young defeated Lawrence Hampton 250 votes to 218 votes. ~  In the 1987 Zone 7 election, Oma Jacovelli defeated Doug Harden 293 votes to 257 votes. - - In the 1989 Zone 1 election, Katherine Mitchell defeated Kenyon K. Lowe, votes. Zone 2 election, Frederick Lee 230 votes to 49 votes. In the 1989 Sr. 322 votes to 59 Bill Hamilton defeated There are at five zones in the PCBE plan with black population t mlnimum black population in a LRSD zone under the PCBE plan is 1,112. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, a black candidate has at least the \" greater that 4,600. fl LRSD App. , p. 8 . opportunity\" to be elected in every LRSD zone, even without receiving a single white vote. 31members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. 42 U.S.C. 1973\nChisom. 501 U.S. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. The Charles Plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously used the 1986 plan approved by the district court as the benchmark for determining whether blacks have \"less opportunity.\" The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"The comparison of a minority's 'opportunity' under a historic scheme and the challenged scheme compares the minority's opportunity to itself, not to 'other members of the electorate. / II Brief of Appellants, p.lS.^ This statement would be true but for the fact that the \"historic scheme\" in this case was specifically found by the district court to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Appellant's Appendix, p. 50-51. In finding that the previous plan complied with the Voting Rights Act, the district court implicitly found that blacks had the same opportunity as other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. As a result. it makes no difference whether one is comparing the PCBE plan to the \"opportunity\" of other members of the electorate or to the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when adopted in 1986 because they are the same. Therefore, ^rhe Charles Plaintiff's also argue that the PCBE plan should not be granted deference because it is retrogressive. Although retrogressiveness may constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, it does not constitute a violation of Section 2. Nash. 797 F.Supp. 1498. Thus, the plan adopted by the PCBE should be granted deference unless it is found to be in violation of Section 2. 500, 513 (1993). Voinovich v. Quilter. U.S. ___, 122 L.Ed.2d 32the opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when approved by the district court in 1986 is an appropriate benchmark to judge the PCBE plan. See Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp 553, 573 (E.D.Ark 1991), aff'd U.S. 112 S.Ct. 2296, 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992) b. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. Using the previous plan as a benchmark, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish. based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" that the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones results in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan when approved by the district court. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364\nTurner. 784 F. Supp. at 573. In an effort to meet this burden. the Charles Plaintiffs presented socioeconomic data concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the ^'Turner, is distinguished from Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 196, because Turner involves a Section 2 challenge to a zone plan which revised a court approved plan to conform to the 1990 census. Poulin v. White. 535 F.Supp. 450 (E.D.Ark. 1982). See In revising the zone plan based on the 1990 census, the Arkansas legislature \"gave preference to plans that departed as little as possible from the remedy implemented in Doulin as a starting point . . . . II It and \"obviously used the Doulin plan Thus, the court in Turner concluded Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 556, 558. \"'Less opportunity' by any fair interpretation means 'less opportunity' than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot 'less opportunity' than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence.\"  II 473 . Turner. 284 F.Supp. at 33political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384.^ The socioeconomic data indicates that blacks are poorer, less educated. have fewer vehicles and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population. Even so, consideration of the socioeconomic factors provides no insight into the issue of whether the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones \"results\" in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the 1986 plan. Regardless of where the zone lines are drawn, blacks have the same socioeconomic status. It is not the line drawing by the PCBE which \"results\" in the blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process, but rather. it is their diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238 (Eisele, J., dissenting and concurring). Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by PCBE, and consequently, their Voting Rights Act claim must fail. See Chisom, 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. ^^See Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone Leadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. else. 579, 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by blacks.\"). 11 584 (E.D.Ark. 34c. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. In proceedings before the district court, the Charles Plaintiffs alleged vote dilution due to \"packing\" of blacks into zones with unnecessarily large black majorities. A comparison of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones and the previous plan, however, reveals that both when it was adopted in 1986 using 1980 census data and when analyzed by Metroplan using 1990 census data. 24 the previous plan exhibited more \"packing\" than the PCBE plan. Conseguently, if the Charles Plaintiffs concern is \"packing,\" they are better off under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they have ever been since LRSD Board members have been elected from single-member zones. Lynch testified that the opportunity of blacks to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the PCBE plan as it was under the 1986 plan. LRSD App., p. 148. Moreover, the Charles Plaintiffs' claim of packing is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. As noted above, the plan adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the 1986 plan when approved by the district court, which was expressly found to comport with the Voting Rights Act. The law of the case doctrine provides that when a court decides an issue of law that decision continues to govern the same issues at subsequent stages of the The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. Under the prior districting scheme, the uwu luajuxluy districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the two majority black districts have 79.82% and 59.39% black population. the two majority black 35same case. Morris v. American National Can Corporation. 988 F.2d 50, 52 (8th Cir. 1993) . The doctrine was created to prevent relitigation of settled issues in a case and to protect the settled expectations of the parties, ensuring uniformity of decisions and promoting judicial efficiency. Id. Furthermore, \"[t]he law of the case doctrine applies to issues implicitly decided in earlier stages of the same case.\" Little Earth of United Tribes v. Dept. of Housing. 807 F.2d 1433, 1438 (8th Cir. 1986) . The district court explicitly stated in its December 18, 1986 order that the previous LRSD election zones complied with the Voting Rights Act, and therefore. implicitly found that the percentage of black population in the zones did not dilute black voting strength through \"packing. II Consequently, it is the law of this case that the percentages of black population in the majority black zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE, which are lower than in the previous plan, cannot be said to violate the Voting Rights Act. d. The Senate Factors. In determining whether. based on the totality of the circumstances, a challenged electoral device results in a minority group having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. the legislative history of Section 2 identifies a number of factors which \"may II be relevant. Senate Report, p. 28-29, reprinted in ^^The Senate Report recognizes that the factors contained in the report may not be relevant in all Section 2 cases. 478 U.S. at 45. Gingles. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining 361982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206-07\nGinqles. 478 U.S. at 44-45 (1986). Although the district court made findings with respect each of these factors, the Charles Plaintiffs address only select factors in their Brief. LRSD assumes that the Charles Plaintiffs accept the district court's findings with regard to those factors not addressed. LRSD will respond to the Charles Plaintiffs' argument that LRSD used discriminatory electoral devices and that the policy underlying the PCBE plan is tenuous on the factors they discuss. There are presently no electoral devices being used in LRSD elections which enhance the opportunity to discriminate against blacks. In 1987 the State of Arkansas adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to LRSD elections. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (Michie 1991), Since 1986 members of the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected from single-member zones, two of which have a majority black population. As a result, the majority vote requirement enhances the opportunity of black candidates to win election in these zones by preventing a candidate supported by the white minority from being elected by a plurality. With regard to the policy underlying the PCBE plan, PCBE instructed Metroplan to prepare alternative plans for LRSD election whether a violation of Section 2 exists has been criticized because the factors more logically support proof of II intent,\" Whitfield V. Democratic Party of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1382 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990), and as a result, often takes attention away from the real issue. Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1386-87 (\"It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. The truth is that focusing on some of those factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws.\"). 37zones which preserve existing zones to the extent possible consistent with federal law. LRSD App., p. 41. The overriding policy underlying the PCBE's instructions was stability. LRSD App., p. 46. Ms. Pat Gee testified extensively regarding the importance of stability of the LRSD Board of Directors. LRSD App., pp. 215-218. Stability has been recognized as a legitimate policy in redistricting. See Jeffers. ,730 F.Supp. at 214. This is especially true where. as in the present case, the plan being revised was court approved and was specifically found to comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Thus, the policy underlying the PCBE plan for LRSD elections cannot be described as tenuous. II. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE CLOSING OF ISH SCHOOL AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF ISH STUDENTS TO THE NEW AND INTEGRATED KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL. This Court's review of district court decisions concerning disputed modifications to a settlement agreement is subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard. Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). This Court should also H give a healthy measure to deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court\". Id. at 257. The last time proposed modifications to the desegregation plans were before this Court, this Court described \"the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are submitted in the future) to which all the parties have not\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_656","title":"Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School buildings","Wakefield Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock Schools: Wakefield Elementary"],"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/656"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nNews clippings and computer printed images of school destroyed by fire in 2002\nArkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY. FEBRUARY 1. 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist, will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman. the schools tapes will be shown each Friday 1... Qjg school via closed circuit Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie dramatizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie, chairman of the theatre arts department at the UniAmericans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people who will make black history come alive for students in the Little Rock School District this month. Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield Africa or black history in the United States. Third-graders are television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous I Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark the month. -------------- In other schools around the studying Kenya this month while district similar events are being fipn. .........11 c-------------------------planned jerry Rayford, a district fifth-graders will focus on the civ- il rights movement in the United States. patron, will visit Terry Elemen- pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama department will perform a skit at tary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana, read books about black history and illustrate them in various art forms. At the end of the month. Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the fhz. .-.1, 1 I? u no .-----------\nschool will celebrate Underground the school on Feb. 23. A group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style.   ' performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. Stud- Other students vdll attend the At Gibbs Magnet Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of Buffalo Sol- School. which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium. The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit At Dunbar International Stud----------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- ent Mary Swift, mances of a musical entitled Kikukuu, a Swahili term that Railroad, at Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. Ajjv 11 r. 1 of the U.S. Army that was sent to Additionally Dunbar students guard the western frontier in will select or produce videotapes 1866.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1995 LRSD students to experience blacks influence on U.S. history BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Children at Little Rocks means, a great day when everyone gets together to celebrate, showing the contributions of Wakefield Elementary School international studies specialist will celebrate the beginning of said the celebration will focus on Black History Month today when music made popular by black Dr. Gwendolyn Twillie drama-  ,. - ------- black .Americans to society. The Vickie Gonterman, the schools tapes will be shown each Friday in the school via closed circuit tizes some old African and American black folk tales. Twillie. chairman of the theatre arts department at the Uni- Americans: such as jazz, ragtime, blues, spirituals and modern-day rap. In addition to the musical. television. This Fridays presentation is a videotape of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. giving his famous 1 Have A Dream speech. Julie Western, international specialist at the school, said gifted education students are planning a drama production to mark - --- Gibbs pupils in each grade are versity of Arkansas at Little studying units that relate to Rock, is just one of many people Africa or black history in the who will make black history United States. Third-graders are hT studying Kenya this month while distocLsimifaT^wnuare bemg tie Rock School District this fifth-graders will focus on the civ- -----' '  .. . ** rights movement in the United Dorothy Davis, a Wakefield States. come alive for students in the Lit- faculty member, is planning an ethnic foods feast for Wakefield pupils later this month. The Philander Smith College drama dethe month. In other schools around the planned. Jerry Rayford, a district patron, will visit Terry Elementary School to describe a recent Art students in each grade will trip she took to Ghana read books about black history and illustrate them in various art Other students in the district will attend Fridays performance ------ of Harriet Tubman\nTales of the the entire school will celebrate Underground Railroad at forms. At the end of the month. partment will perform a skit at ccieuraie .  group of Mardi Gras, New Orleans-style, performers from Central Gonterman pointed out that New High School, known as Positive Orleans is home to large black Image, will sing negro spirituals and Creole populations. 1 Stud- Other students will attend the Elementary les Junior High Magnet School, a performance of \"Buffalo Sol- School, which features an inter- collection of African dolls will be diers on Monday at Robinson Auditorium, The Buffalo Soldiers was the name given a black unit and Creole populations. At Dunbar International Stud---------- collection of African dolls will be national studies theme, first- and displayed to mark the month second-graders are rehearsing The dolls were collected by par- for their Feb. 23 and 24 perfor- mances of a musical entitled ent Mary Swift. Railroad,\" Robinson Auditorium, said Lee Ann Matson, who works in the Little Rock districts Volunteers in Public Schools program. of the U.S. Army that was sent to Kikukiiii  a Swahili Additionally, Dunbar students guard the western frontier in MKUKuu, a Swahili term that will select or produce videotapes ----- 1866.Atkansas l\u0026gt;\nnMM\nrat iW\u0026lt;O'Zfllc )  TUESDAY, OCTOBERS, 1999 Arkansas Domocfnl-Ga.otle'STEVE KFESEE a supervision aide at Wakefield Monday lor the first day of a joint preschool program sponsored by the Little Rock School District and Pulaski Counly Head Start. Rodrick Hicks, Elementary, dressed as Leo the Lion, leads 4-year-olds  _ _i._ 1  1. I :iln Dz-./'L' erhnn wearing ariimal masks into the Little Rock school LR preschoolers benefit from new space Multiagency program expands early childhood educational offeiings  Head Start is a long-standing, fed- BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARfCANSAS DF.MOCR.\\T-OA7F.TTE tume of a lion mascot and snacked on animal cookies while assorted The elastic band on Brittany dignitaries looked on and video Austins chicken face mask had cameras rolled. erally funded preschool program for children from low-income families. About half the children in the Wakefield program qualified under Head Start's family income limits. The district and Head Start eu uui, __ J The parade and subsequent good day for the 4-year-old speeches marked the opening of -  -   ^1^. early childhood education classrooms at Wakefield, the result snapped but. otherwise, Monday was a on her first day of preschool at Lit-tie Rocks Wakefield Elementary. The ponytailed marched in a short parade with Brittany of a now multiagency collaboration that includes the Little Rock her 35 classmates, each of whom -S-c-h--o-o--l -D--i-s-t-r-i-c-t and the Pulaski was hidden behind an animal County Head Start program, which have served preschoolers for several years, but Wakefield is their first formal independently mask. She petted an infant lion cub, fearlessly touched the cos- Fourth  Continued horn Page 1D trict has provided preschool class-county iieau oiaii piugiuu., v,,...... - .- is operated by the University of joint venture. Tlre Littte^ Arkansas for Medical Sciences. See FOURTH, Page 3B After Monday's ceremonies, ------------ Brittany and her Wakefield class- increase in preschool prograins mates moved into two spacious partly as a result of new state tund-classrooms, each fVeshly decorated ig for elementary schools where and newly equipped with the kinds 75 percent of more ot students of things that stir a youngsters come from low-income families, imagination\nbrightly colored al- The money is earmarked tor P . . _____1 ____1.1  fhrniioh tir^t The district is able to finance an e.s for more than 700 children a imagination\nbrightly colored ai- me moiwy is eannaiKeu year at 21 of its 3.5 elementary phabet rugs, tricycles, sand tables prekindergarten through first  schools. Pulaski County Head Start play kitchens and a plastic tool grades. this year has 29 preschool centers bench. Staff from Satoi P^k serving almost 1,000 children. The classroom space was made Faulkner County pronded teo Hon  -  -    possible by the transfer this year of cubs and a tiger cub for the chil-all Little Rock sixth-grade classes dren to study Monday as part ol from elementary schools to middle their fii'st day of school activities, schools. Besides the space, tlie dis---------- trict is providing daily lunches and tu uApuuu . ............. .. v-v. a curriculum that gives children ex-grain from 800 to as many as 1,300 periences with dramatic play, children within a year. , blocks, art, language, hand eye-co-  Little Hock Superintendent Les  Carnine told parents, scliool district officials and university representatives gathered in the Wakefield library that the district wants to expand its early childhood pro... liaren wnnin a year. , This particular agreement with not only UAMS but with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock will help us maximize our efforts in the school district to serve 4-yciir-olds, Canline said. This is exciting to us. This is the first of what we think is a inaivclous agreeiiicnt among the agencies. Dr. Charles Ecild, a UAMS pediatrician at Arkansas Childrens Hospital and executive director of Pulaski County Head Start, in an inteivicw later in the day, praised ,Caniine's interest in expanding early childhood education. He said the Wakefield program should prove to be a model program that could work in all three of the Pulaski County school districts. North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, like Little Rock, are partners in the collaboration. Pulaski County Head Start uses sjiace in some county and North Little Rock buildings but the agencies are not yet jointly planning preschool programs. ordination, science and matli. The classes are staffed with teachers and aides jointly provided by the district and Head Start. Both agencies helped to equip the rooms, as well. Head Start is paying for a family enrichment specialist for the early childhood program. In that position, Mysti Norman will coordinate the delivery of medical and social services, such as dental care, vision and health screenings, nutritional and developmental assessments and referrals to family service agencies. Plans are under way to establish a class for 4-year-olds at Meadowcliff Elementary within the next several weeks. Other potential sites for preschool programs are Western Hills, Terry, Otter Creek and Forest Park elenieiitaries, depending on the availability of space.  SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 2002  J Ferocious blaze guts grade school in LR Fire crew never had a chance to stop it BY DIANA RASCHKE AND CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Voegele Mechanic^ Contractors of North Little Rock began a $551,000 renovation of the school Little Rocks Wakefield Ele- this summer, including installa-mentary School was destroyed tion of central heating and air by fire on Friday, canceling a conditioning. summer community program for Ninety students in prekinder-about 90 children and throwing garten through fifth grades were into question where nearly 400 ^t the school earlier Friday parpupils will attend classes this ticipating in a five-day-a-week fall, summer program sponsored The southwest Little Rock by the University of Arkansas at school, at 75 Westminister Drive, Little Rocks Share America procaught fire around 6 p.m. and gram. The summer session, was still burning four hours lat- called Camp Medical Mania, er. No one was injured, and fire- provides day-long activities in fighters didnt know how the fire science, math and health for the started. children  many of whom live Firefighters said the build- in the Wakefield community ings age and structure made  as well as field trips to local fighting the blaze difficult. Sup- museums and parks. plies left behirid by construction Four weeks remain of the six-workers and doors propped week program. Next weeks ac-open to accommodate this sum- tivities have been canceled, mers renovations on the 43- Heather Gage, assistant to the year-old school probably helped director for the program, said fuel the fire, they said. late Friday night. Although pupils are on sum- School officials said a janitor Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/RUSSELL POWELL met vacation, the school was oc- was in the building Friday A Little Rock firefighter hoses down hot spots at Wakefield Elementary cupied Friday by contractors evening and reported the fire. School on Lancaster Road. The southwest Little Rock school was de- working on the schools heating The blaze consumed new strayed in the fire, which started about 6 p.m. Friday. and air-conditioning system. See SCHOOL, Page 9A School  Continued from Page 1A phones, new lights, a new ceiling, and 50 computers still packed in their boxes. We were going to get a really good start on the yeai\n\" kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said. Miller watched her classroom burn along with her posters, cassette tapes, the charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. The fire had a good start on us when firefighters arrived. Little Rock fire safety officer Bob Franklin said. \"The fire crew never really had the chance to stop it, he said. He said workers inside the building had propped the fire doors open, allowing the flames to spread, and that building sup- Gloria Miller watched her classroom bum along with her posters, cassette tapes, the , charts she used to teach kindergartners how to make a sentence and the little blocks and bears she used to teach them math. The recliner, bean bags, rocking chair, all the stuff she bought with her own money to make her classroom feel like home to her students. plies left in the halls probably acted as fuel. The fire seemed most concentrated in the northwest area of the building, Franklin said. At one point, he said, firefighters were pouring 5,500 gallons of water per minute on the fire, and you could tell that was-nt even putting a dent in it, Franklin said. The roofs metal truss construction puts it at risk of collapsing in extreme heat, Franklin said, so firefighters were unable to enter the building and stood several yards from its walls. This, Franklin said, is going to be an all-nighter. Neighbors and teachers watched the flames hollow out a cornerstone of their community. Wakefield Neighborhood Association President Don Darnell said with pride that he had been a member of the first graduating sixth-grade class at Wakefield. If I stop and think about it long enough, its tough, he said. Wakefield has been a community meeting center for years, he said. Its more than a place for students to go five days a week,\" he said. 17118 has been a real center for community activity. Of the 384 pupils who attend the school, ordy 10 ride the bus. Principal Les Taylor said. Most of the rest live close enough to walk. For the teachers and the kids and the parents, its really a tragedy, he said. To have a school so close, its really, really sad. If theres any fortunate thing about this, its that well have six to eight weeks to plan where were going to be, Taylor said. If it happened during the school year, wed have one or two days. Officials will meet Monday to start planning, Taylor said. Three of Eduardo Ramos children were to start at Wakefield this fall. Yolanda, who will be in fifth grade, asked to transfer from Cloverdale Elementary because Wakefield is less than a block away from her home at I Daven Court On Friday she covered her mouth with her hands to block the thick smoke and told her father she could see the flames better from the other side of the house. He said the fire might bring the neighborhood even closer to the school. Now its going to make people take care of the school and improve the school, Eduardo Ramos said. Were going to have a new school now. Superintendent Ken James, who will mark his first anniversary as Little Rock superintendent on Monday, was in California on Friday to attend a Milken Family Foundation National Educator Awards ceremony. James staff said Friday night that he had been notified of the fire. Efforts to reach officials from Voegele Mechanical Contractors in North Little Rock were unsuccessful late Friday. Wakefield is believed to be the districts first school in active use to be destroyed by fire. It is a relatively small school compared with the other 33 ele-mentaries in the states largest school district, which has more than 25,000 students. The school was built in 1959 by the Pulaski County Special School District. The Little Rock School District acquired it in 1986. It was one of 14 county schools transferred to the Little Rock district in a federal court order Intended to remedy racial segregation problems in the two districts. The 14 schools were within the city limits but outside the Little Rock School Districts boundaries. Wakefields eastern wing of about eight classrooms was added in 1970. That wing was found earlier this year to be structurally damaged and was slated to be replaced over the next several months with proceeds from a school district tax increase passed by voters in May 2000. That tax, which is being used to renovate schools throughout the district, was also being used to finance $551,000 in work under way on the schools ventilation and fire alarm systems. Security cameras and energy efficient lighting were installed at the school only last year. Initially, it appeared the eastern wing was not as damaged by the fire as the older part of the building, school district spokesman Suellen Vann said. But she said sections of the roof appear to have fallen even in that area of the school. This is the second major fire in the Little Rock School District in 10 years. In October 1994, about 60 percent of Chicot Elementary School was heavily damaged by a fire started in the schools media center. Investigators determined that the blaze was set by two girls, 11 and 8, pupils who set the fire after hours with matches. The school was rebuilt but half the student body was sent to the districts Oakhurst School and the other half to Ish School for several months. More recently, the stage area at the historic Central High School was damaged by a fire that was extinguished before it spread. Repairs were made without closing the school. Vann said Wakefield is insured. The value of the school was unavailable Friday night. Its not just a building. Its a place where teachers and chil-dren come together and some- j thing special happens inside the classroom, Vann said. I 5-1 /  SUNDAY, JUNE 30, 2002  3B J\" I t ' A [ij 1 U \u0026gt; Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/BENJAMIN KRAIN Little Rock firefighters on Saturday morning spray the smoldering remains of Wakefield Elementary School in southwest Little Rock. The school caught fire about 6 p.m. Friday and burned throughout the night. Wakefield fire deemed accidental LR district rnust decide where pupils will go before Aug. 19 opening BY AMY SCHLESING AND DIANA RASCHKE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The fire that destroyed Wake-field Elementary School in southwest Little Rock was ignited by an errant welding spark during renovations at the school Friday afternoon. We have no reason to believe it was arson. This was a very expensive accidental fire, Little Rock Assistant Fire Marshal Randy Davenport said. There is no question of negligence. Welding produces tremendous heat and sparks. It happens. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been working on air-conditioning brackets in rooms U and 12 of the school Friday afternoon. Voegele was un-uJ W. MARKHAM'g^ uj CD 1 fire engines didnt leave the The school district closed Bad-school until 4 p.m. Saturday, gett this spring to save money. when the building was little more than a field of rubble. Were looWng at the capacity of the elementary schools in Wakefield Elementary 1 N Arkansas Oemocrat-Gazefle The building had begun to southwest Little Rock, Vann collapse Friday night. As Wake- said, but most of our schools field Principal Les Taylor looked near Wakefield are pretty full. on Saturday morning, a bull- About 10 Wakefield Elemen-dozer leveled the unstable build- tary students rode buses. Most ing and churned the smoldering students walked to school, Vann remains as firefighters doused said. them with water. Well just have to take a look Davenport said Engine 17 at all those other schools, she would continue to make hourly said. If we move them, well inchecks at the site for the next cur additional transportation few days and cool the ashes with costs. water. Superintendent Ken James Little Rock School District of- was in Los Angeles on Friday at-ficials will meet Monday to look tending a national education at options for Wakefields 400 seminar at which a Mabelvale students  whether to use Magnet Middle School teacher portable buildings and rebuild, received a Milken Family Foun- Fire engines were called at to distribute the students across dation National Educator Award. der contract to complete a 6:04 p.m., but within minutes, other schools or use a recently He plans to fly back to Little $551,000 renovation of the the schools airy hallways and closed school. Rock today. school. combustible books, desks and Suellen Vann, spokesman for Its truly one of our neigh- The workers put away their chairs had spread the fire the Little Rock School District, borhood schools, James said, equipment and left the school throughout the structure. said a decision will have to be Its always tough to lose a about 3:30 p.m., and when a jan- It was rolling good, Daven- made very quickly. School starts school in any kind of situation, itor arrived shortly before 6 p.m., port said. Our guys didnt stand Aug. 19. Its one of those tragedies that he found heavy smoke and a chance. One option is reopening Bad- well have to regroup and look flames in the two rooms, Dav- Firefighters got the blaze un- gett Elementary School at 6900 at our options and see whats enport said. der control about midnight. But Pecan Ave. on the citys east side. See SCHOOL FIRE, Page 8B July 2. 2002 Wakefield school likely to rise again ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rocks Wakefield Elementary School  which was ravaged by fire last week  will likely be rebuilt, district Superintendent Ken James said Monday. In the meantime, he said, hes searching for a stand-in school site for the nearly 400 children displaced by the blaze. James will meet with School Board members at a special meeting at 5 p.m. Wednesday to review options for the children who are to start the new school year Aug. 19. James said it is his intent to find a site that will be the least disruptive to the pupils, many of whom walked to Wakefield from nearby homes. Possibilities include reopening and assigning the Wakefield children to Badgett Elementary, which was closed at the end of this past school year as a way to save the district money. Badgett, at 6900 Pecan Road, is 9/i miles down Interstates 30 and 440 from Wakefield, which is at 700 Westminister in southwest Little Rock. The use of Badgett, however, would likely preclude the prekindergarten and Head Start classes for 40 4-year-olds at Wakefield. The district doesnt bus 4-year-olds. Other options include dividing the Wakefield student body among other southwest Little Rock schools or housing Wakefield children in portable classrooms on the Wakefield site. However, James said he doubted that the site could accommodate the number of portable buildings that would be necessary. Wakefield was insured with a $100,000 deductible, James said. The fire was reported Friday evening by a school janitor. Investigators are focusing on the possibility that errant sparks from welding work done in the building earlier in the day on a new ventilation system went undetected and led to the fire.I  WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 2002  School fire to send voters to church ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Pulaski County Election a light turnout is expected. Early voting is running Only 170 Little Rock residents smoothly at the Pulaski County Commission met Tuesday to ap- had voted early by Tuesday af- Courthouse, the only early vot- point a substitute polling site for ternoon. ing site for next weeks election, Wakefield Elementary School. The Peabody Hotel Group Election Coordinator Luke Dren- The school, which is the regular is asking voters for permission nan said. polling site for Precinct 756G, to use\"$19 million in revenue humed down Friday. Voters who went to the school to vote will now cast bal- bonds to renovate the hotel. A vote for the bonds wont in No problems. Were ready and roaring, he said. Early voters are using the crease taxes or leave Little Rock iVotronics electronic ballots, lots at Geyer Springs United liable to repay the bonds, but while people who wait until Methodist Church instead. Amendment 65 to the Arkansas next Tuesday to vote will use All other regular voting sites Constitution requires public paper ballots. in the city will be open for vot- votes on revenue bonds to fi- County-Circuit Clerk Carolyn ers next Tuesday in a special nance hotels, office buildings and Staleys office mailed out 574 bal- el^on on the bond issue for the recreational facilities. lots to absentee voters and had Hilton Inn on University Avenue. ~  . . The Peabody Hotel Group gotten 352 back Tuesday. Little Rocks 130,000 regis- will pay for the special election. t Absentee voters have until tered voters are eligible to par- which is expected to cost 7:30 p.m. next Tuesday to return ticipate in the July 9 election, but $42,000. their ballots. THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2002  Get Wakefield school rebuilt, board orders Meantime, most pupils to go to Badgett BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE When Little Rocks fire-ravaged Wakefield Elementary School is rebuilt, a new marquee sign purchased by the school and its Parent-Teacher Association will be there to herald the opening. The districts School Board on Wednesday removed any doubt about Wakefields future when it directed Superintendent Ken James to start the process of rebuilding the school at the existing site as soon as possible. In the meantime, the $5,000 sign purchased shortly before last Fridays fire will go into storage, and nearly all Wakefield pupils and staff members will be temporarily assigned to Badgett Elementary School, which was closed earlier this year to cut district expenses. The only exception to the Badgett assignment will be for pre-kindergartners and children in the federal Head Start program. They will go to Meadowcliff Elementary. The board selected Badgett as the alternate site for the more than 300 displaced pupils and the staff with the blessir^ of the Wakefield faculty and its PTA leader. I think its a great decision, Principal Les Taylor said after the board meeting, which was attended by nearly two dozen See WAKEFIELD, Page3B Wakefield  Continued from Page 1B Wakefield employees wearing navy-blue Wakefield T-shirts. I think it is very, very important to the staff in light of the tragedy that we all stay together. Investigators believe the fire, which was reported by the school custodian about 6 p.m. Friday, was started accidentally by errant welding sparks earlier in the day. Welders with Voegele Mechanical Contractors of North Little Rock had been installing air-conditioning brackets in Rooms 11 and 12 of the 43-year- old school that aftemooa Some $550,000 in renovations, includii^ a new heating and air- conditioning system, were under way at the school at 75 Westminister Road. James suggested several options for the displaced pupils but recommended the one that Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in kindergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. would send pupils and teachers to Badgett. Badgett is 9.5 miles away at 6900 Pecan Road, near Little Rock National Airport, Adams Field. Wakefield is projected to enroll 370 pupils in londergarten through fifth grades when school starts Aug. 19. Badgett can accommodate them ail if the four existing portable buildings on that campus are used and two additional ones are acquired. Other options called for assigning kindergartners and first- graders to the eight-classroom wing that is still usable at the Wakefield campus and sending older children to Badgett. That would keep the youngest children close to home, James said, but could provide an obstacle to the quick rebuilding of the school Additionally, the eight-room wing addition that was built in 1970 was structurally deteriorating before the fire and was slated to be replaced. James also offered the possibility of sending Wakefields children and staff to several different district schools but said he didnt believe that was a suitable option. The board also considered using nearby buildings not owned by the Little Rock district, including Pulaski County Special School Districts old Daisy Bates School, which the city of Little Rock now owns. The cost of readying the buildings for students was too expensive, though. District officials hope that insurance settlements will provide enough money to not only reconstruct the school but also compensate the district for student transportation to Badgett and at least partially reimburse teachers for their teaching aids and other belongings that were destroyed. Most of Wakefields pupils walked to the school. Building a new school the size of Wakefield is expected to cost about $3.7 million. However, district officials already are talking about adding classrooms to accommodate enrollment growth. A final insurance settlement is not expected for several weeks. Wednesdays School Board meeting was the first opportunity for a reunion of the Wakefield staff since the fire. After the board meeting, teachers gathered around a hastily compiled school album of before- and after- the-fire photographs. Here is one of the mats the children nap on, kindergarten teacher Gloria Miller said as she pointed to a blue speck in the rubble shown in one picture. That looks like a pocket chart, she said of a pink spot in another photo. Erica Hughes said her fourth- grade daughter and fifth-grade son have cried over the loss of the school they have attended since starting school. They also were enrolled in the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America six-week summer program, which was moved to the Southwest Community Assembly of God Church. They made the best decision they could considering what they had to work with, Hughes said about the Badgett choice. But it will be difficult for parents as far as transportation because of lot of people in that community walk their kids to school.School fire  Continued from Page 1B best for the students and the staff at Wakefield. Meanwhile, a summer day camp that was in its second of six weeks at the school has found a new home in the neighborhood. The school was one of six sites for a five-day-a-week summer day camp sponsored by the University of Arkansas at Little Rocks Share America program. Southwest Community Assembly of God at 7400 Lancaster Road has volunteered to house the program, which serves about 90 students, program director Cheryl Chapman said. The program, canceled this week, will resume July 8 and finish its final three weeks at the church just two blocks from Wakefield. The great news is that a community pulls together when theres a disaster like this, she said. Theyre a great church that does a lot of thmgs in the community. The Rev. Will Deerman, pastor of the church, said he had thought about offering the church to the Share America program when he first saw the flames Friday night. He met with Chapman on Saturday and made the offer. Ive known Cheryl for several years, Deerman said. I think its going to work out just fine. I just hope we have all the space they need. The Share America program serves children in kindergarten through fifth grades with the ed- ucational summer program The program lost books, food and i other supphes in the fire. Chap-  man said. The programs theme is Camp j Medical Mania. Chapman said i children who had just learned : about the Red Cross were\namazed to see the medical work-  ers show up at the school Friday and Saturday, where they fed and helped prevent heat exhaustion for the more than 100 firefighters. What a lesson, she said. They started saying, Look at all these people that are here to help out.  The loss of the school has left more than students and campers without a facility, however. The Pulaski Coimty Election Commission will have to find a new polling place for neighborhood residents before the July 9 special election. A bond issue for renovation of the Little Rock Hilton hotel is on the ballot. Charles King, the commissions chairman, suggested the^ Wakefield School site might be combined with another established polling place at the nearby Wakefield Baptist Chinrch. As city leaders worked to fill the void left by the demol-  ished school and community I center, neighbors gathered ' aroimd the rubble. I When officials removed the  yellow tape surrounding the rub- I ble Saturday afternoon, neigh- I bors crept up close with cam- eras. Joyce Kennedy attended sixth feet away, used to work in Wake- grade at Wakefield when it fields cafeteria. opened in 1959 and still lives nearby on Exeter Drive. She took pictures Saturday of heaps of tangled and warped metal, smoke stiU rising in places. Her mother, sitting in the ear a few Kennedy said she almost cried when she.h|ard V^efield kz4 --------------s had burned. Now, she said, the photos are all Ive got left of it. I could say I remembered it when. I 3'2 0, 2 0 0 2\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_555","title":"Loan agreement","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1994/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Loan agreement"],"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/555"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nArkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 6^2-4475^ GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Divisj^^ arr. i .o January 31, 1994 FEB 1 1994 OUwo oi Cc\nMr. Jerry Malone 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Jeriry and Chris: The Arkansas Department of Education would like to schedule a meeting with one or both of you and district representatives to discuss the Little Rock loan provision. Page 26 of the September 1989 Settlement Agreement specifically states, \"If at anytime between the date of this Agreement and December 31, 2000, the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. H The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the standardized test to be used to evaluate the progress of LRSD. Please call or write to schedule a meeting. Sincerely, Elizabeth Boyter cc: All Counsel of Record EB/say STATE 50 .Members: CARLE. .EAUi D '- F ELLt FaE R-OE  \\i ios- CFuirmn  ELAISE SCOTT. Little Rock \\ ice Chairman - RICHARD C. SMITH, JR..Tillar AILLIAM H. FISHER. Paragould -JAMES M. LLEWELLYN. JR.. Fen Smith JAMES A McLARTY Hl. Ne^^non : SRY. A'NadelrhiJ CHERRY WALKER. Lime Rock NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock Ar. Laual Opponunii\u0026gt; Emploser 05/11/1999 07: 47 PHILLIPS o  r} 4  pb   5016324336 I r I A * a * a Miebitta a  PESEaFCH 4MD DESIGM PHONE No. : S17 349 7874 I ]  vaiTBxitr W T 4 Sta 4 XOKl xsMoaxaaQM TO) Qayla Pofctac, XK Dapt. of Iduo. FROMt Buaan Phillipa Page Jul.23 1995 02 1:34rn S.x. PHILLIPS, CONSOLTAifT 0 r f J c K 4 2 3 4 X * r i a  r 0 k * * 0  , ( 4 1  1 1 XI base 4 M I 4 F22 SATS I July 21, 1995 XKi Raaponsa to Saeonmandat ion tgon Joaana Lanka I have revlawod tho you forwarded to ao. memo Dr. and aappotftlim dooaoantatlon from LanMa Jtaa sworidad uaofui data Joanne Lonko auremarited the Iseusg Involved In ehooeiing r Little Rock settlement. Sefere coO^entlng raguirament and teat score altoraatiwe, i offer a faw regarding my interpretation ot ihB languaQe at the settlement. altoraatiws, The Little Rook Sattlafwant **Tfffrmnt and Bueeinetly * metric for tho mandato of the opoelfically on the 90% a few general cofpjnenta Thera ara savoral key phrasaa 3a the pdirtiea thlrv^ ehar-rwlth  k7 Z Sattlemant daa\u0026lt;l i.n order to implement Its tarms. The ..ollowlng are some thoughts about thM definitions. ^'.4\"* time\"  indioeteB thatt the event need happen and can be meaaurad at any hisM period during the school year. only once \"atandardixed taat\"  ia a nationally normed, **2 *** payohetnetrie quality. the JaRaMorar Is Rook already adalntetara thija for the aattlanent mandate. - - . If Little lhstru*|}t, it would ba a logical choice 3. \"composita saoraa\"  uae g thia teralnolegy suggesta an M A UMmx acoc* Off one that aaor4iffM^n \u0026lt;cadBio eubjeot.^ *.. ith raspec? to the 3a:::s^:co:e\n brs:\nr J52r..rbr}\nother parte of the be attactea by wording in .kill. i. .Hue.. I*' I\" alluded to, the beelo hatte^ Were 1 SaSm. equalising the totality of eduoefeioos score may be more appropriate. acre may be moat appropriate. I have been made about the broader complete battary iF r 05/11/1999 07:47 5016324336 duo\u0026amp;tion PESEAFCH AUD DESI6N Itttle Hock Sattlamant . . . p. 2 'paoial aduoation atuRtonta\"  this probably studanta in th* Littla aook eohoole whg haw^ toa*:l.n9, plaood Psaaumably, fcMtonca aduaatlon In apealaX dtw\u0026gt;at4*n atudanta astt aa^tlaaant, what about otHM an XSP refers t tha Sof Evaluation but b taatad. to all tino of not yot by Although ipaolal the language ^WcH *9 vocational atudonta, I diieabiiitlaa under floetlon 304? of tha aa absent***, ox atudAata with gualleyl^ ncnguslifylng .tud.nts with dlaabllltiaa (.f. , a nen-a^^alaX adai^tlan atudont with dyolaxla or vloualXy Inpalsod student t th* aro^ti \u0026gt;tn$|liah psoflolMney ba'tit 4 X oXavaxoom) 7 a will atuddnti onl.?2inL  l*iMe an non-black students or only those of auropeen anmtry? ba* about hispanie Americans? inrttoded/ aeilit eil gradss ba tasted? results for different grade* to be oc^bi^d? studanta^ - Which gradat \u0026lt;loi tbl* all anoMtzy? How ora 6. \"90% or greeter\"  the  intent for the mean score at bltu^ : aeeme to indlcata an mean tcora for whitoa. at laast nine tantha of tha .. Thimaay be gn unreal lotic the time irana and ebstadOee to be everoome. approximately five yeart to drereaee learning deficit of poverty which have develed over ^udtote' lifsti^o?.' City, which spent latlllans in th* public doeegregation has bean to aohievement test ohstadtiaE axpactatlen given Little Rock haa a and tha effacte has orders, aklllsna .ta Sven Xanaas achools scores. algnifleantly unde\nIncrease In defining a presumption of I diaeriaiaiatien the federal  .in the employment arena, government has 'uppert\u0026lt;\u0026lt; an 30 rule. percent applicants hired. **- - ^ . . . refer Thus, applicants are hired, at suet also taet ssBraa hi\u0026gt;4 ta the However, the 304 9 avallahla So hired to Moreover, if an eraploysr opportunity to deisonatrete' aecions. 2n oassB such se thiSx rule, if 7C of gualifiad whita leeet f giMlifiad minority applicants *oid ipreeuaption of diserin-.' this ^et\n. the aniployer still a :\u0026gt;rMMBptlon dlaerlr.lnaticn. haa an * acwpdllKj intacsat to Justify its in cases such as Peers ?,i l,ga9 between ainority and aajorilj^ at issue. In such oasea^ adjainiatratoro to insure thd* ____ xiaon earn a high school diploma.\nRewe*eV|l minority scores to be a sertiin raguirsment seams to SuggestSn 9*ti3 rather than an aqual opportunity to e* ghposiaq a Tvoe gf ,fSbrentiaXs in paaaing ratsa W graduation taata have been [ Mir* ixpoead dutlaa On taat hftd X chajica to Nib oeurta have not required of majority acorsa. It to Such a specifled outcome 1 agree Lenka that J non* of 1 asoauo* no lonoitudlnal ___Z tgree with Dr. MJor types of atandaedited tast a B ------longitudinal ooapavisdde impl* interpretation of aara raw eeore di: the Little Hoek aettleraant. Jld the languaqa lands itaalf to :aa. Ona might. !or axampla,05/11/1989 07:47 5016024386 WE Mo. FESEaFCH AMD DESIGN : Si? 343 374 F45E 04 Jjl. 3 35 WttXa Rock Settleaiant . . . p. 3 I I  -4 -I c m  o co co \u0026lt;o oompute the baaio battery raw s^ra aMsae for blacks and whit lovol and check for attainment of the Jfjs arlterlon at each \u0026gt; Of Whether .11 Kowevvr, eempXy s at a* unanewesfd the ideation at yhothas is already a etsiseeat\na6dadard and 9radaa U9O of at d\u0026amp;Qh grada grade lavi. must nor:::kir:::ma::::::*^^ ukeiihooc that .uL nook \u0026lt; fltandBgagopgaft \u0026gt; reaaenabla appro.eh ay M to ak^ sing la comparison each year. 9o\u0026lt;^ he on the iui, ccmpsrsbl . would regale ^has aU etgdent .oo^.^\n\"rZ\" n'r*\"* ^**^^**** aoaled aaores jure typiedtlu daaianed to  acais. Zine'T- Srae*'' \"1^* motrib?^onecould eosled soot* for alttii^le Rock black is grades but exoluding epeoial edeeef .11 white students. ^yple^Jli^y designed 9\u0026gt;ua, uaUlB a. soaled to students (aumming the mean sealed score ahea^ .-w . O'eell 4^nprisoo would meet the tl ttlement Ifaguage. aoeerer, outside of the a^ttament te. -uch calculations -would Uv. llt\u0026lt;. wlevance. ^ett.amant a s 3ieiiltfTr, spirit and vine tha sr poaeibility would be t^..t a efcitaeion for success (e.g., -ator ierformonce level) and detarmina Thia rina! L ^*4 sWdents i, at least 90% of that inia Goea not soMCera axar^* onforme to the apirlt of 9rad0 level\" os a t* \u0026gt;at suecass es the percent ei hitea. W\u0026lt;anta i at least . ----------- providing nts. As stated, the 9qni stand, t drd than to an adequate or \u0026gt;pprwn.\u0026lt;.t pretation that provides ed may result in tion of Stated, a * zeeeoai an standard which aay be y U the wording of the settlement I ideguata education ia oleaer to for minority s maximal performance education atandard. .e opportunity Thus, an ------ w I wuiii-'\u0026amp;y for Little Rook to eAxcstqtonal improvement for i,flpn to National PiggagaBfe^a enka'J psopaeal oe cenperid* the hid rreeponding netional data ceaeoM allow Little aook to deaenilkrata prd leal standard. J' blacks than ae nearly irapossibla to aeet. fcZ!l^'fca dlffarantial i' and realistic. in Littla Reck Thia method ra Oonforns t to densonatr oonforme to the iangue^e end inti th9a thoughts art in 4*aj  feel free to contact JM ij! X cna being held to s strict of'the xettlemant. ata that such a l^th ths dilsRsca you axs facing, lay further aasiatanoa. u O 'i .DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 . GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 28, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Gene Wilhoit, Director Arkansas Department of Education Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District Gayle Potter, Lead Planner, Design Team Recommendations from the Variables Committee The Variables Committee began meeting on May 18, concluded with recommendations on July 27, 1995. ______________ committee include Robert Clowers, Gene Parker, and Sterling Ingram from the Little Rock School District, as well as Vicki Kerr, and Gayle Potter from the Arkansas Department of Education. The committee was joined at times by others: Russ Mayo of the Little Rock School District and Gene Jones of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.- 1994, and Members of the The Variables Committee provides within this document a description of the problem around which it was convened, a definition of important intervening variables which affect student achievement, a brief discussion of the assessment or testing instrument, and attachments with expert opinion. Problem Statement: . perception of a student achievement gap that is racially based, as evidenced by results on large-scale assessments. Considerations for Problem: Large scale assessment data analysis has been limited to sender alone. Data should be reviewed in the context of thefollowing four critical variables which intervene to affect achievement: socio-economic status, family structure, parent- education level, and early childhood education.Definitions of Variables\nSocio-Economic Status: As determined by free and reduced lunch eligibility Collect SES data from free and reduced lunch information\nalso make use of the family link identifier -  Eamily Structure: Household where student lives most of the time (both parents, father only, mother only, father and stepmother, mother and stepfather, foster parents, legal guardian, other) Collectfamily structure data from the Pupil Information Form Parent Education Level: Highest level of education completed by mother/father/legal guardian (e.g., elementary school, junior high, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, trade school, other) Collect parent education level by adding to the Pupil Infoimation Form Early Childhood Education: Any of a variety of organized pre-kindergarten experiences, such as.Headstart, HIPPY, 4-year old programs, other pre-school Collect this data from the Pupil Information Form ASSESSMENT OR TESTING INSTRUMENT\nlanguage of the settlement requires the composite scores Lxttle Rock School District black students (excluding special education students) to be 90% or greater of the composite scores of Little Rock School District white (excluding special education students) on a c test agreed upon by the State and the Little Rock 2^ District. This may occur at any date between the settlement agreement and December 31, 2000. -2-Committee discussions around ''standardized testing\" included tests, performance assessments, portfolios' and norm-referenced tests. w fcj nk\u0026gt;_xx u. .a yk/X u *3 f ..V, '7---: Minimum Performance Test has been ^andoned, the new criterion-referenced tests based on the Curriculum Frameworks are under development, and no statewide ...  f ciiiu. xiu oLctuewiae testing instrument is currently available The Arkansas n-iTPct- M\u0026gt;-Tt--!TnrT ------ ___ . Direct Writing Assessment purposes. English Language Arts and Mathematics Portfolios are under development, but it will take several years of professional development with teachers reliable scores could be produced for settlement purposes. xs not comprehensive before The only standardized test currently in use in the State and District IS the state-adopted based on our research and the norm referenced test. However, expert opinions from , , , ------ wjj/a.xxku\\.^xxo X.XV/Ul psychometricians, we have formed the opinion that a testing instrument has a different purpose than the settlement purpose and uses metrics which to the requirements of the settlement agraamexiu.. no^-referenced testing instrument is intended to compare the achievement'of students within the District to the achievement of students within the standardization group. Therefore, it would T compare the achievement of black students in uittle Rock to the achievement of black students in the standardization group and to compare the achievement of white students in Little Rock to the achievement t e standardization group. But that comparison is not the standard outlined in the settlement. are not well suited agreement A Therefore, it would group. of white students in Nevertheless, if a norm-referenced test is used to determine the n black students white students in the Little  oc chool District for settlement purposes, scaled scores or raw scores would appear to be the better metrics according to expert opinion. (See attachments.) been informed that...... purposes to use. . However, we have , T . . \"outside of the settlement mandate, such would have little relevance.\" (See Phillips' attachment.) If a norm-referenced testing instrument is used, tL- ____ consensus is that the state-mandated grade levels for testing Should be the focus of the application of the 90% the committee rule. The two attachments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, y sccacnments are opinions from Joanne Lenke, Executive ice resident and psychometrician at Psychological Corporation an an independent response by Susan Phillips, psychometrician. R * *** J tAAX * XX Jk Jk Jk aU O f O J ^Xx^^kllC awyer and faculty member o Michigan State University, aira Qf working papers from the committee for have included a Also I your perusal. Please contact me if you would like to meet with the Variable Committee for discussion. *  a time convenient to both your schedules.  We shall be happy to do so at -3-HARCOURT BRACE Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement 555 Academic Court San Antonio, Texas 78204-2498 Tel 210-299-1061 Fax 210-270-0327 \\\\ A' Os  * \\ u\\ -9 t March 30, 1998 Mr. Frank Anthony Assistant Director of Accountability Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall, Room 305A Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 \\^vv Dear Mr. Anthony: This letter is to summarize a conversation I had last week with Ed Jackson regarding the types of test scores reported for SAT9 that would be appropriate for reporting summary data for Arkansas students. Basically, there are two types of scores that are appropriate for reporting group summary data on SAT9Normal Curve Equivalents and Scaled Scores. Both are equal-interval measures and both may properly be subjected to arithmetic operations which are commonly used to summarize score datameans, standard deviations, coefficients of correlation. Normal Curve Equivalents(NCEs) can range from values of 1 to 99, while SAT9 Scaled Scores may range from 350 to more than 800. The advantage that Scaled Scores would have over NCEs is that they offer finer distinctions among students whose percentile ranks are at the extreme end of the score range, i.e. either 1 or 99. If we were reporting data for a group that included larger than usual numbers of students with very low achievement levels. Scaled Scores could make finer distinctions and allow us to measure gains for students who score in the 1 percentile. Scaled Scores then, are not only appropriate, but may also be a preferred measure for reporting dis-aggregated scores  for African-American and White students! In my opinion, they also are consistent with the language of the  desegregation decree under which you are operating. If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please call me at (800) 228-0752, extension 5394. Sincerely, Thomas E. Brooks Manager, Applied Research Cc: Yvette Dillingham Maria Drees Bob Hudson Vicki Gray07/10/85 11:38 SaiO 270 0327 PSYCH CORP. 0002 TO: Department of Education from\nJoanne Lenke, rE\nFollow-up on Our DATE: July 10,1.995 Discussion In Phoenix of scores for Aswe discussed. I Xw a ratio of less than 90%. eimilar In order to achieve an middle CI me score range. ^cu can Black and While will see on the accompanying tables. I've examined raw oflhe\"90%j yield a In order to achieve an MCE ratio of 90% nr better, between the performances of Black and White students are ^^^^^^'\"gXtKlOpe'rcentiterankunns. - most rational approach to the Al,hough I underslec- national peers when their performance 1 hope that the informaUon I've additional information. I've provided Is helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you needre. PHILLIPS PHONE No. : 517 349 7074 Jul.23 1995 l:34Fn S-K. PHILLIPS, CONSDLTAiiT ofc 4 \u0026lt; a IrlAkaciB Kall Kiehifiaa state ph O A  ( 17 J ***, KI IviHltT HOKI OTXXCl 4 3 3 6 H a r 1 a  r \u0026lt; a B a 4 . 0 k  B 0 1 , (  J 7 J XI I a a  \u0026lt;\u0026lt;( a47t74 TOt kemoranduk Gayla Potter, AK Dept, of Eduo. PHOHi Suaan Phillipa DATS! July 21, 1995 RS I Paoponaa to Raoommandation ftom Joanna Lnko I have taviowod tho memo and Supporting dooumsafeation from Joanne Lonko that - has provided uaaful data -uuuincujLV settlement u Choosing a metric for the mandate of the raguirament and teat score alternatr^\"^^\"^ specifically on the 90%  7of Se  comments -i of the language of the settlement. you foewardod to no. Dr. . ----- Lonke summarized the issues involved Little Rock uaaful and Bucctnctly taat coiwnsnfcing regarding my interpretation 1 offer The Little-Rock Settlement Aqrraeaant Ihere i th. portion of th. -.1 me which must be defined in order L some thoughts about these definitions. that you shared with Ths following are 1. phrases in Little Rook Settlement to implement its terms. \"If at any time\" and can be measured ~ indicates that the event need happen only at any time period during the school year. once standardized test\" a -------------------instrument, it would be settlement mandate. If Little a logical choice 3. \"composite scores\"  intent that the performance Stanford, use of this terminology suggests cir -re. iS' suggests that cither \" ba used. the measurement be this areas. on Battery Boorea other parts of the the Basic Battery or Coc^lete Tho choice may be affected settlement. by wording in W.Us is alluded to, thrbaSrLt7' ineguity in basic Alternatively, if mom  ^ttery score may be most appropriate, equalizing the totalitv of statements have been made .about  .core h.tt.ry appropriate.f Little Rock Eattleiaant . .  P. 2 4. -pcxai education etudanto\" thio probably refers otudonf in the Tittle PooR sohools who have an ISp\" *t the time o- Praeumably, atudente referred for evaluation but not yet diBabilitlee a *il*blo for nonqualifying students with ( .g., a non-apaoial education student with dyoloxia or a \"npaeial oduoatlon thio probably toeting. plaood who hava QtudentB education would an ISP to all aeo referred for evaluation but be teeted. clearly exempted by about othor groupo ouch as available for vioually impaired otudont in the rogul with limitod Englioh profioionoy ar bo toatod? alaeoroonj 7 Hill studanta 5. \"white Btudanta\" only those of Europe Which grades an does this include all ancestry? non-blaok students or What about hispanio Americans? results for included\nmust all grades be tested? results for different grades to ba combined? How are InteL for tb^r language seems to Indicate an nine tenths of the the timA -F This may be an unrealistic expectation given the time frame and obstacles to be overcome. Little Rock h\" I years to overcome learning deficits and the  the settlement language approximately five mean score of blacks to be at least nine tenths -----r. This may be overcome. Of poverty which have developed City, which has spent millions dasagregation orders, achlavsmsnt test scores. over students' lifetimes. effects on has been unable the public Even Kansas schools under to significantly increase In defining a presumption of discrimination the federal in the employment government has supported an 80% rule. applicants^hlred but to the . percent of available PP hired. under thia rule, if 70% of qualified white at^ least 56% of qualified minority applicants to avoid a presumption of discrimination. does not teat arena, However, the 80% Thus, applicants are hired, j ' ust be hired to avoid a Moreover, if on employer fails this opportunltv tn ziL rnis me emproyer stiii has an dctiona? demonstrate compelling interest  to justify its also a teat, the employer still has In cases euch between minority nt issue. adrainiatrati as Pai^ra P., large differentials in passing rates and majority students on graduation tests have been In such cases, the courts have imposed duties caaea, P earn a high school diploma, minority scores to be minority students had a fair chance to However, these courts have not required requirement rather than a certain percentage of majority scores. Such a eeema to euggest an entitlement to a specified outcome an equal opportunity to aohlavo. Shopping R Type of Score 1 agree with Dr. Lenke that scores are well suited to the Jeoauee no longitudinal -- none of the major types of standardired test requirements of the Little Rock settlement. a B Upl. inJ:S:::at2:n are required, the language lends Itself erpretatlon of raw score differences. One might, for example. to. PHILLIPS PHOME Mo. 5 517 343 7374 Ju 1.23 1595 1:ooPM Little Rock fiattlemant . . p. 3 compute the bnoic battery raw moans tor oiacka and whitea at each orada level and check for attainment of the 90% oritarion at sack grade level However, thia laavea unanawered the question of whether all grades must Z^dei'^ac \" stringent standard and use of a Lnj^Lt^e norfulflirt?** increases the likelihood that Little Will noc zuXfxH xtiB XQ\u0026amp;ndditio* eaora maanB for blacks whites thio The 90% across unanswered la already grades X more roasonablo approach do BO 90% criterion at whcthor all grades use of Rook - .w, ou,l d. roqu,l ro that a\"ll y otudontmaka a clnglo eomparleon each' year. To Standardlred tost scaled scores be on the same, comparable scale. BcorsB are typically d.lgnad to deteraine^if tha'^mean ^^uB, using a scaled score metric, one could # uBvomxns xf Kha niBeui scaled - . \u0026gt; allow comparison of Thus, l____ mean scaled score for all Little Rock black across grades but excluding spacial education) for all white studants. the letter of the Such an Overall students (summing is 90% of the mean scaled score mandate. settlement language. comparison would meet the spirit and _,,_v 1 . , ---- outside oHf otwheev ers,ettlement such calculations would have little relevance. jjodlfvlRq the Standard Another possibility above grade lavsl\" would be to set a criterion for success (e.g., \"at or or a minimally acceptable performance level) and determine hether the percent of xor whites. but conforms to the spirit Bucceasful minority students is This does not at least 90% of that students. AAhs stated, standard than to an adequate or interpretation that conform exactly to the wording of the settlement of providing an adequate education the 90% for minority mandata is closer to a maximal performance appropriate education standard. Thus, an Buccaad mav i \"p rov-i-d--e--s  rreeaassoonnaabbllee opportunity for Little Rook to greater educational improvement for blacks than retention of an standard which may be perceived in as nearly impossible to meet. Coaparieon to Rational Differentialn tDor , cLorerneskoeo'sn fpHr onZpr os al -fo--r the bl ack/white differential in Little would allow Littl2^R^C^i reasonable and realistic: This method ittle Rock to demonstrate progress without being held to a strict However, it may be difficult to demonstrate that such a demonstrate reasonable and realistic^ Rook mBaBurrLnfn\"'^'f be difficult to demonstrate asure conforms to the language and intent of the settlement. JlS with th. dU.a you f.cing, l.l fro. to contact me if 1 can ba of any futth.t aaal.tance. 1 sL LrmjE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED DIRECTOR'S OFFICE July 31, 1998 AUG 3 1998 department of EDUCATION ^GENERAL DIVISION Raymond Simon Director Arkansas Department of Education d Q\u0026lt; '1 .yj. P Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Desegregation Settlement Loan Dear Mr. Simon: I am writing in response to your June 26,1998 letter requesting that LRSD deposit an additional $270,000.00 in an account established for the possible repayment of the loan authorized by the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The issue you have raised is one of several outstanding issues concerning the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. I would like to work with you and your staff to resolve ail of the outstanding issues as quickly as possible. From my perspective, the most important unresolved issue is whether LRSD has met the conditions for loan forgiveness set forth in Section VI-B (6) of the Settlement Agreement. We are supposed to use a standardized test to grade upon by the State and LRSDl to determine whether the scores of LRSD black students are within ninety percent (90%) of the scores of LRSD white students. A team composed of ADE and LRSD representatives was formed several years ago for the purpose of deciding which standardized test would be used to determine loan forgiveness under the Settlement Agreement, ihat team agreed to use the Stanford 8 Test with scaled scores as the metric. That agreement is reflected in ADEs August, 1997 Project Management Tool which was filed with the district court: In March 1997, recommendations were drafted proposing the use of he SAT-8 as the ADEs Monitoring Instrument and the use of an aggregate average for racial groups to measure achievement disparity using scaled scores as the metric' I recently read in the newspaper that another group within ADE will recommend the use of Stanford 8 scaled scores to determine loan forgiveness. It seems that the question of whether or not LRSD is entitled to loan forgiveness is a threshold issue which should be resolved at the same time as, if not before, the issue raised in your letter. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 Desegregation Settlement Loan Page 2 Please let me know ADEs current position about how and when we will determine whether the settlement loan should be forgiven in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. I will be happy to meet with you so we can work together to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible. Yours very truly, 'Leslie V. Gamine Superintendent of SchoolsO. ^2 \u0026gt; '*^1 **i Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director April 21, 1999 Tim Gauger Attorney Generals Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Request from Legislative Audit on Little Rock Loan Agreement Dear Tim: Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Little Rock School District is in default with regard to the payment schedule, as well as in default in the amount of the one payment made to date. The district has been contacted about this lack of compliance with the terms of the loan agreement and has yet to provide any meaningful response. This apparent disregard by the district for the terms of the loan agreement has prompted Legislative Audit to ask our agency to seek implementation of the default provision of the agreement: Any installment of principal or interest not paid when due shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law until paid in full. LRSD, if it defaults by not timely paying any of the installments due hereunder, shall pay to the State its reasonable attorneys fees incurred in connection with the enforcement of the n obligation. As the Department of Educations legal representative in this matter, please assist the agency with addressing this issue. Mr. Simon, as well as the State Board of Education, seek a timely resolution of this matter. Sincerely. Theresa Wallent Staff Attorney co: Mr. Raymond Simon, Director Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director, Internal Administration Mr. John Kunkel, Finance STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chainnan - BETTY PICKETT, Conway  Vice Chairman - JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant Members\nEDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARL E. BAGGETT, Rogers  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould  LUKE GORDY, Van Buren  ROBERT HACKLER, Mountain Home  JAMES McLARTY III, Newport  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Texarkana  ANITA YATES. Bentonville An Equal Opportunity EmployerARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MEMORANDUM April 16,1999 TO: Theresa Wallent FROM: Bobbie Davis REGARD: Request from Legislative Audit On Little Rock Loan Agreement Legislative Audit has requested a written update on the status of the Little Rock Loan Agreement established in 1990. The Department to date has been provided verification of one deposit of $30,081.44 from Little Rock toward this repayment. As you will note from the attachments, the first payment of $300,000 was due September 24,1997. Therefore, Little Rock is in default with regard to the payment schedule as well as in default in the amount of the one payment that was made. I have attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Simon dated June 26,1998, in which he requested correction on the name of the escrow account as well as default payments. To date the Department has received no response to Mr. Simons request. Legislative Audit is exploring why the Department has not implemented the default provision in Section 11, page 5, of the Loan Agreement. A copy of the Loan Agreement is included in the attachments. Could you please assist me by drafting a correspondence to Mr. Tim Gaugher at the Attorney Generals office informing him of this concern and requesting his guidance and leadership in addressing this issue. Legislative Audit will need documentation of ail actions for their files. Please send copies of all correspondence and documents to my office. I will forward to Legislative Audit. As you will recall the State Board is also concerned with this issue. I would propose that this item be updated at the next State Board meeting. I feel confident that Mr. Simon would like for that report to be that Little Rock is current on all payments. If I need to provide other information, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance in handling this issue. Cc: Raymond Simon, Director John Kunkel, ADE Finance o .o Aikansas .a DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 RAYMOND SIMON, Director June 26,1998 Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Camine\nIt has been brought to my attention by the Division of Legislative Audit that the Little Rock School District has not deposited the proper amount into the LRSD/State Loan Repayment Account. According to the Loan Agreement dated September 24,1990, the principal amount of each Note will be repaid in twenty (20) equal installments. Installments shall be due on the 7th through the 26th anniversary of the date of the note. The Note dated September 24,1990, was for $6,000,000. Therefore, the amount due September 24, 1997 was $300,000. In March 1998, John Kunkel of my staff contacted Mr. Mark Milhollen, for verification of the deposit. We were provided a copy of a bank statement for the Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account #00-0073-610715. At that time.the bank records reflected a balance of $30,081.44. The balance consisted of $30,000 plus earned interest. The auditors also noted that the account name should be the same as required in the loan agreement. The Department is now requesting that the Little Rock School District change the name of the account to reflect tire name required in the loan agreement and deposit an additional $270,000 to be in compliance with Copies of the documents verifying these actions will be forwarded to the loan agreement. Legislative Audit, I appreciate your cooperation in correcting this error. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Raymond Simon cc\nTim Gauger, Attorney General's Office Ronnie Ridgell, Division of Legislative Audit STATE BOARD OF EDI CATION' Chairman  BETTY PICKETT. C onxi\n Vice Chairman - JoSELL CALDWELL. Bnanl .Members: EDW IN B. ALDERSON. JR.. El Dorado  CARL E. BaGCETT. Rofrri  MARTHA DIXO.N. Arkadelphia  WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould LI KE CORDl. \\an Buren  ROBERT HACKLER. Mountain Home  JA.MES McLARTl 111. Newport  RICHARD C. S.MITH. JR.. .McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON. JR.. Teiarkina  ANITA 1 ATES. BentonvilleC  CVi-6tdiXl\u0026gt; STATE O F ARKANSAS general assembly little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 September 18, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mike Huckabee Governor, State of Arkansas RECEIVED FROM\nRE: The Honorable Mark Pryor Attorney General, State of Arkansas Mr. Ray Simon, Director Arkansas Department of Education n Superintendent Little Rock School District Senator Jim Argue Senator Dave Bisbee Senator Jodie Mahony Suggested Resolution of Arkansas to Issues Pending Between the LRSD KOF OMQNJTQflJNG and the State SEP 2 4 20 A number of issues School District, each invX^^om^ofSllJ^ of Arkansas and the Little Rock each threaten to lead to protracted litigation We do tT A brief review of the pendittg issues might be helpM: Bonded Indebtedness Pe Little Rock School District current funding formula, i- s r .- . (FRSD), as the district at the 9S IS ma position to influence the th .0 school distnhts T bow to structure thepayment schedule farTO^l ?\" J ' of detenruthrrg U.C State dupugh dte ftudiug fomrula wrll rag?SXMSl?or \" amount of required state funding ir tkzi _________  dollars. This is money that would be owed to increased base funding. Unitary Statu.s approximately 270 school district that would receive The LRSD i the LRSD m a position to seek unitary status at t eld f tb^nn^^ designed to put achieves umtary status, the State wifibe in a position ^^RSD required it to pay LRSD for various deseerealin^ circumstances, which State should be relieved of its obligation to mat have changed and that the LRSD. The loss of all desegregatiol related st^e payments to the million dollars per year. Arfund $9 mfiU^ of tol  ^RSD about $15 desegregation efforts including magnet .rbnnf represents money for transportation aid. The other $6 milhtn i? ^J^^o-niinority transfers, and compensation and health^LsimLle The prospect of expensive and protracted htigatto7 ^^^h sides, but the effect on Ute LRSDs efforts to end federal coXn^S? and that the -- amount represents money for majority-to-minority transfers, and count supervision. Loan Forgiveness* The LRSD and ADE have discussed LRSD has met the and debated the question of whether the pursuant to the 1989 settlement and ADE to agree upon of ,.L ta by the ADE a test thaTw^usId to ^^^^D ----------- uxat agreed to use a certain ^rmme loan forgiveness. LRSD entitled to loan forgiveness. ADE disa^ees ^RSD is contends that ADE agreed to Monitoring and Compliance including helping the PuS settlement agreement tbATDcr,---------   J ''^ous ways and in monitorine the LRSDs progress. There is .heex.e..,,ehADEhasco^ a SStdarm th! S\" iTbe oeneiicial to the parties involved. met in a way that is most can have significant positive or and delay are acceptable means for seekg resolution Web Protracted litigation optimism that, when considered to^eth^l Z^ T ^gree of issues can be found.  ^'^^^^*y^^oeptable resolution to all of these explore the possibilitv of. l ^^^i^st . . Possibility of a mediation process that would consider all of amumaliy satisfactory resolution. WewouldsuX, - _ services of a neutral arbiter who the issues at once and seek to find that the parties discuss the possibility of employing the serviwould structure the process, allow all parties to make their best case on these issues, gather information, and then propose a resolution that would embrace certain compromises between the parties. Hopefully, the proposal would be acceptable to all parties, and would resolve these ag^avating issues once and for all. Issues and concerns from the intervenors in the federal litigation should also be heard. We understand that the process may not be binding on the participants, but that each would participate in good faith and do their best to resolve these issues. The LRSDs removal from federal court supervision should be cause for celebration. The State has legitimate concerns about its future, extraordinary obligations to the LRSD. Let s try to find a resolution that allows the LRSD to celebrate its progress, allows the state to address pressing needs elsewhere, and most importantly, focuses our limited resources on the needs of our school children rather than on continuing litigation. To rely on the courts to resolve these issues before trying some other method seems to be a abdication of our public duties, and in the end, wastes precious, limited school resources. The LRSD needs to chart a course that leads to success without court supervision, and given the State s track record in court, the State needs to be proactive in finding a reasonable solution that does not obligate and divert additional resources. For either party to succeed, we mus-fiunravel this Gordian knot. We would appreciate your prompt response to this suggestion, and would be pleased to facilitate in any way you might deem helpful.AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huck:ibee LRSD and the State shall the Parties. collectively be referred to as RECITALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\")\nWHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end, WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court momtoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgiven or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nWHEREAS, under the States current funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue. Page 1 of 8 IXQ . tv fAA WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State\nWHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS 1. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first 9 LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11,8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and release from court supervision, the State agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of the States obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD. the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the States ability to seek modification or termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8ijfj UU4 court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3.2 The State agrees to coojierate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate the Statess obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to any or all of the following: (1) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undermines this Agreement\n(4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. County In recognition of the LRSDs efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8U . ** ^2 r/iA ittl UUO as follows\n4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all frmds in the joint escrow account establi.shed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of 4.2 4.3 the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B. of the the State will forgive and release the LRSD from dollars) in loans 1989 Settlement Agreement, any obligation to repay these Ioans If the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July I, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of pnncipal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD Agreement. pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8UO/XO/Ui inv 0.40 r/iA igl uuo subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4 2 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court 4.5 In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotia te in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VLB of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest: or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page 5 of 8UB/28/U1 THU 1(5:47 TAX 1^007 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in full force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shall negotiate in good 5. 6. faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD any disputes pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said Ioans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its terms of this negotiation or execution, shall be constmed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CrV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8UUZ MX r AA l^UU Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10 This Agreement is entered into as of the /^ay of March. 2001, by the undersigned oflBcers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom IS authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8MU/ ^/ MX ltl uuu LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY: Dr. Les Cj tine, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: Rayland Simon, Director H:\\hhgioo\\tg\u0026gt;ugcr\\Ark\u0026gt;nsfl AG - Dccg\\fliisc\\3_13_01 agnnftLwpd Page 8 of 8 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1803-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. 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 III JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES K. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN 0. DAVIS WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M.TODD WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonesQwij.com JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.** TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. BALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN* C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY** M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. MCKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.O. VIA FACSIMILE March 19, 2001 RiCBVED MAR 2 9 2001 * Licensed only in Fionda and Texas ** Licensed to practice before the Linked States Patent and Trademark Office a Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RE: Proposed Agreement between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Dear Chris: Thank you for sending over a draft of the agreement last week. As you know, I was in a two-week jury trial and the jury came back late Friday afternoon. I have reviewed the agreement and have had preliminary conversations with two school officials. We have not fully absorbed the intent and meaning of the proposed agreement and I have not had a chance to discuss it yet with you. Accordingly, the PCSSD must reserve the right, at this point in time, to object to Court approval of the agreement if it ultimately appears that such would be in the best interest of the PCSSD. 242298-vl Celebrating Years 19 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP March 19, 2001 Page 2 In the interim, I certainly look forward to discussing this with you in depth. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao M. Samuel Jones, III cc: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Stephen W. Jones Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Celebrating 1 0 0 Years 19 0 0 2 0 0 0f EDWARD L. WRIGHT (jsoa-ieTTi ROBERT 5, LINuSEV 0*13.1891) ISAAC A SCOTT. JR. JOHN G. LtLE GONOON 8. RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID U. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS auFORO. JR. PATRICK J. SCSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHH TISDALE KATNLYN CRAVES M SAMUEL JONES Hl JOHNWILL1AU st*ivev in L6E J. MULDROW N.M NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWt.N L. J.R CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPAODEN ROGER 0. ROWE ' JOHN 0. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HSffKY VIA: FACSIMILE rvigntrax WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SO! 3T CAPITOL AVENUc SUITE 2200 UTTLc ROCK. ARKANSAS TSlOUSSda {501)371-0808 FAX (SOI) 376-9*42 www.wlj.com Oi* COVKSIi. ALSTON JENNINGS ROnalO a uay JAMES R. VAN OOVER Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 m)on8s@wq.com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER ray f. COX. JR.- TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAUe\u0026gt; M. moody JR KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARY. OAVtS Claire shows Hancock KEVIN W KENNEDY JERRY J. SALlINGS william STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O 8AAMES STEPHEN R LANCASTER JU5Y ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE Simmons allgooo KRISTI U. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CKKISTIME J. DAUGHERTY, P(tO- MICHELLE M KAEMMERLING ERIK* ROSE MOMTOOM5P.Y SCOTT ANDREW IRBY MOLLY A. AOEE MtCNELlB MAROIS OiLLARD PATRICK D. WILSON  (jEnsetfBfnoicaaaftmneLMea 3MU *hf u-.UH}.ii July 11, 2002 The Honorable Wm, R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue. Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District\net al USDC Docket No.\n4\n82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I have the Court's Letter-Order of July 11, 2002 and I write in my capacity as counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District I have tried to follow the recent proceedings and I have a general sense that the issues witnesses and exhibits have been pared down considerably. My sole interest in the hearings next week revolves around Joshuas designation of Ray Simmon. Director of The State Department of Education, as a witness virhom they intend to call. If memory serves, he is listed as witness number 29 on Joshua's witness list and will be called to give testimony concerning the agreement between the State and LRSD. That agreement respects terms and ccnditions of the loan forgiveness to Little Rock and also includes a bilateral agreement between Little Rock and the State concerning a sunset provision by which payments such as those for magnet schools and M to M transfers wiii cease. Let me first say 1 cannot fit this particular testimony and this agreement into the parameters or what understand to be the issues that will in fact be addressed next week. At the\ndo not recall an order which specifically addressed Mr. Simmon and this agreement. same time, I It IS my underetanding that this agreement has never been submitted directly to the Court for approval or disapproval. However, when it first suiTaced, I did have occasion to write Judge 3S04Q9-V1njLBUtfdx * WRIGHT. tINDSEY 4 JENNINGS LLP July 11, 20Q2 Page 2 Wright advising that the PCSSD had not been a party to either the negotiator of or the execution of this agreement and that we opposed it. If this evidentiary item is not going to be addressed during the unitary hearing, I would respectfuiiy request to be excused from those hearings. EverTif Ns going to be ad^ wouio asK trie inauigence of the Court to simply require the par to nSfy ^^^^0 approxirnateiy wnen dunng the proceedings this issue might be addressed so that participation couio be limited to that witness and this issue. my any kind of position to assess and address this matter today with the SDtendW morning would not be required, that would be dpiVllUlU It? KlrOW. Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:wrmh .x'^^amuely^Jones, 111 cc: Honorable J, Thomas Ray All Counsel of .Record 1 350409-vli Chris Heije7 , j.,15,01 agrmnt.wpri 0002 Page AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS DISTRICT i This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through School District CTRSD\"), and the the Stare Board of Education, the Arkansas I I .! i i Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shaU colbctively be referred to as the Parties, WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are recitals  parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (1989 .Senior Agreement\"), WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement anposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end\nWHEREAS, LRSD wiU seek to be declared unitary and released from federal monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State terminate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agr^ment\ncourt may seek to WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced baas to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twenty million doflars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD those loans will be forgiven Settlement Agreement\nas to whether or must be repaid pursuant to Section V1.B.(6) of the 1989 I I fS WHEREAS, under the States cuiient funding formula for public school districts, LRSDs per pupil revenue affects the total amount of fending which the State must distribute through the formula\nWHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects LRSDs per pupil revenue\nWHEREAS, the State wants LRSD financial impact on the State, to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the 1003 Pagezj ft WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the foflowmg terms and conditions: agreements ! f I 1. LRSD agrees to good pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has of this Agreement, whichever comes first. been obtained or until the terminatton 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual defat payments wiU be 11.8 million dollars beginning wiA the 2002 calendar service Education docs hereby approve the LRSDs bond application as submitted year. The State Board of 3. In order to facilitate and on February 19, 2001. release from court supervision, the State the States obligations to the LRSD i encourage LRSDs efforts to attain complete unitary status and agrees that it will not seek to modify or terminate any of under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement any enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement or court dccisrons I, 2008. This covenant shall Agreement up to and including June remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates p pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete umtary status and release from court supervision. I 3.1 Provided, however, that this Agreement docs not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as modification or termination of limiting in any way, the States ability to seek any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement I t I Agreement (including court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Linle Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement docs not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or termination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it 2 w I I f@004 I I I r 3.2 4. prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assen in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. The State agrees to cooperate with and the legality- of this Agreement the Statess obligations under the 1989 to the efiect that the State has assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to or any effort by a third-party to modify or terminate Settlement Agreement. Such and assistance shall include, but not be limbed to, filing jomt pleadings pleadings responding to cooperation any or all of the following,' (1) supporting the legality of this Agreement\n(2) filing joint any request to modify or terminate the States obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement\n(3) fihng a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or mdirectly undeimmes this Agreement\n(4) fihng a jomt bnef opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refhsmg to modify or termmate the 1989 Settlement Agreement\nand (3) filing joint pleadings this Agreement to United States District Court to remove or transfer any challenge to the legality of with the Pulaski County School CIV-LR-82-866. In recognition of the LRSDs efforts from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the the LRSD agree as follows: 4.1 Page 3 j B and to consolidate the challenge Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. I to obtain unitary status and complete release success of the LRSDs efforts, the State and The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first 515,000,000.00 (fifteen million doUars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds m the yimt escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B ( the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be practicable. released to the LRSD as SOOS as 3 I ILChfis Heller - 'jTl s H agrrnnt.w^_ oos t 4.2 In addition, with loans advanced to the LRSD respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in I Agreement, the State will forgive and release pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement repay these loans if the LRSD obtains the LRSD from any obligation to 4.3 status and release from federal a final order granting it complete unitary Court supervision on or before July 1, 2004 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD a pursuant to Section i I I I i ! i I I i 4.4 I I VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order status and release from federal court graniing it complete unitary ^pealablc order of the United States District Conn for supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but i appealed and subsequently reversed in whole or m part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to rep^ the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(I) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and aU interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court fer Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that any modification of IS necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4.3 of this Agreement, and shafl take such fertile: action as may be necessary to obtain such a 4 J I i i I li I 1Haller agnrint.wpd  006 Page 5 ii' modification, mchidmg but not limiied to appealing any adverse decision of the District Court I I or ruling 4.5 In the event this Agreement is tenninaled pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effon to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the Ioans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resohition, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. not In die event such relief is g sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed I i or offered as evidence of any admission against interest the part of the State or the LRSD. or waiver of any kind on 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not tenmnated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the through 4.6 of this Agreement .'.hall be null provisions of paragraphr 4 and void but severable from the I remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that aU other promises and obligations of the Parties shall rcmam in frill force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shaU negotiate in good faith in an effort to amve at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes conccminB the loans flrivani-wj to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989.Settlemenl Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, inchiding but not limited to sexkmg appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the S i ng,iia.ia.i,. II I i I I I I I I H^Her  32.1 5 q'i agrmni wf^ Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed evidence of any aHmKoinn State or the LRSD. or offered as against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the 5. 6. The effective date of this Agreement shaU be the date of execution. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to atrolv to th? f sppty to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30,2004 7 The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School c^, u,S.D C, No CIV.LR.82.6, Uoiod So. Dteio, Co lull too jodsdicaon ,0 erforoo te ,o\u0026gt;ol,o dlspuus b=n die Ponios out of this Agreement and to hear ariqtng 8. This Agreement expresses the entire any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. altered except by a writing executed by the authorized It IS specifically contemplated that this Agreement agreement of the parties and may not be modified approval of the LRSD and the State, after further intervenors. 9. All covenants, conditions, benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal 10. or representatives of the LRSD and the State, may be modified or amended, with the consultation and discussion with the Joshua agreements and undertakings contained herein shall mure to the This Agreement is entered into as of the successors in interest and assigns of the parties. oflScers of the Little Rock School District and the whom is authorized to ----- day of March, 2001, by the undersigned Arkansas Department of Education, each of execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. 007 Page 81 I 3^1S_q-I agrrnnt.wpd  008 nrr^ ( I I i ^age?] LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY\nI Dr. Les Canune, Superintendent ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BY: 1 Rnymond Simon, Director t I H: aG - DW-P\u0026lt;wio.13.15.01 M=-twpd 1 )FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL 1^1001 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 Regions Center 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE little rock, ARKANSAS 72201-34S3 telephone (SOD 376-2011 FAX NO. (5011 376-2147 CORPORATIONS THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR\nAnn Marshall 371-0100 FIRM NAME: FROM: Chris Heller DIRECT NUMBER 501-370-1506 MESSAGE\nSee attached. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (including this information sheet): 8 DATE: March 15, 2001 TIME: A.M./P.M. TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LIOIO-90 _____________ CLIENT NUMBERMATTER NUMBER CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE\nThe information in this facsimile grivileged and confidential information i individual or entity named above. intended recipient. or copy of the tran.LttL^^- tZsnsjnltCsJ. is Isgally ---- intended only for the use of the If the reader of this message is not the transmittal in rs error strictly prohibited. If you receive this distribution original transmittal to Service. Thanh you. , please rmmedrately notify us by telephone, and ~o us at the above address via the United States Postal and return the THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999 LR schools : 1  put^Slmillion in loan account State, district disagree over repayment terms . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL .. ARKANSAS DEMOCRATGAZETTE , \\ Little Rock School District offt\ncials have put nearly $1 million into what they have titled LRSD/State Loan Repayment Ac- ' count in response to state officials who said the district isnt complying with a 1989 agreement for repaying a million state loan. . But Assistant Attorney General Tim Gauger said Wednesday that the district controls the accounL which is not an escrow account jointly established by the state and district as required by the 1989 agreement. After a July 12 directive from   made a decision five years aan thof wo uro pnfitIpH tn ago that we are entitled to loan ____ , , , forgiveness.-, ..i  Cohtlnu^trom Pago ., In anticipation of the state ask- settlementfthe'aistncF'would not  ing a federal judge to enforce the have to'repay the state loan if be- settlement temis for tlie escrow fore December 2000 the composite account, school district attorneys scores' earned by black students have asked tlie Education Departon a standardized test reached at ment for. minutes and other docu- least 90 percent of the scores of ments dealing with test selection.^ white students. The test was to be I suppose it will go to court, agreed upon by the state and the Heller said. \"This may prove to be district fortunate for us because we didnt Chris Heller, an attorney for the seem to be making any progress school district, said Wednesday with the state to get them to make that the fact that the district has a decision on what the test for loan not deposited money into a jointly forgiveness is going to be  even    *' though it seems that it has been decided twice that it should be the held account arises from the states failure to agree on a test to measure student achievement, which would determine whether the Little Rock debt would be for- given.' Two state Department of Edu- Stanford 8 scale scores. Gauger said the state will simply ask in its court filings that the district comply with the settlement in teiTOs of the jointly held escrow cation committees recommended account. *  ' We are not going to allege that that scale scores from the Stanford they have not met the standard [for Achievement Test, eighth edition, tuvj. iw.v mve v.,v i.x be used to measure student loan forgiveness], Gauger said. achievement, Heller said. But he All we are asking is that they get the escrow current. In my mind, if said the proposals were never for- ------------- ----- mally adopted by Education De- you are holding the money, why partment administrators or the not put it into the joint escrow? state Board of Education. The district got its first mil- School district officials contend lion of the $20 million loan in Sep- i that the district meets the require- tember 19tW. It^was obligated by the state Board of Education^ Gauger said he plans to file a mo-\nments for loan forgiveness if the the original 1989 settlement agree- tion early next week for Chief U.S. Stanford scale scores are the mea- ment and by a more detaile^oan nistriet Tndpe Susan Webber ' sure. agreement in September 1990 to Uistnct Judge busan Webber , ..This issue should have and begin repaying that portion of the Wright to enforce the agreement against the district. He contends i could have been decided a long loan within seven years into a spe- time ago, and the decision should cial escrow account. The loan was    ............... - to be repaid in 20 equal install- that the district owes $996,000 . that we are entitled to loan for- plus investment earnings. giveness, Heller said. We In the 1989 financial settle- , shouldnt be sued over the ques-  tion of an escrow payment when niversary of the initial loan.' ments with a 3 percent interest rate going into effect on the Sth ailment, the state pledged a $20 million loan to the district to be paid over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every two years, TTie money was to help the the state could have and should According to a draft of the mo- tion Gauger intends to submit to the judge, the district was re-  X pr  X- - 1 X quired to make a principal pay- distnct offset desegregation-relat- of $300,000 into the escrow ed costs. account in September 1997 and an- According to the terms of that other $300,000 payment on the 1 See LOAN, Page 11A principal in September 1998, plus  ' an interest payment of $171,000 at Simon asked Gamine to change the account name from Little Rock School District Special Desegregation Account to reflect the account name required in the 1990 loan agreement and to add $270,000 to the account, the balance the dis- trict owed at the time. Milhollen said Wednesday that he believes the district has com- -------- that time. Little Rock drew another $4.5 -- --------- million from the loan in Januaiy plied with Simon s requests from a 1992 and was to begin repaying year ago. as well as the terms ot that with an initial $225,000 in Jan- the September 1990 loan agree- mcnt We followed their recommen- into the escrow account, plus in- uary this year. According to the terms of the . 1989 agreemenL all money paid dations in the letter they wrote to --------- us. Milhollen said.  We did what they asked us to do, which was to adjust the $30,000 to $300,000, and we titled the account like they vestment earnings, would be returned to the district once the student achievement goals are met. asked us to title it. Thats what they asked us to do. Otherwise, the escrowed money and subsequent payments on the debt would go to the state begin- Superintendent Les Gamine, Larry Berkley, School Board ning in 2001  president, said recently that he Superintendent Les Gamine, thinks the State Education Boards who acknowledged early last vote to force the district to make month that the district was in de- escrow payments was a matter ol fault of its payments, said this politics. . -.r -----------u nA knnn .People in the rest of the state don't want to think about forgiving a ^0 million loan to a school district in Little Rock, Berkley said. week that the money had been put into reserves but he hesitated to say more before the court case.  Earlier, Carnine said the test issue should be resolved so that the dis- \"I can understand that, but it may trict \" could use its financial re- not be the smartest thing. There is sources on students. the potential that the state uld Mark Milhollen, tlie district's get dragged back into the desegre, manager of financial services, con- gallon case, which could end up firmed Wednesday that $968,375 costing the state more money. I was put into the LRSD/State loan don't think that is a wise move. rpnavmentaccountJune30,thelast The state was dismissed as a repayment account June 30, the last to the $30,815.89 already in the ac- repdyiiivnidLLuuiivuujicAaxv,xxAxji, day of the 1998-99 fiscal year. Added party in the now 16-year-old deseg- io iiie $30,315.83 already in the ac- rogation lawsud after the ap-. counL the account totals $999,190.89. proval of the 1989 fmancial settle-, Milhollen cited a June 1998 let- ment. However, Wright retains ju- ter from Ray Simon, director of the risdiction over the state to enforce Education Department, in which compliance with the agreement. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2000  Arkansas Democrat azcttc Deadline set for compliance on desegregation case escrow BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Educa- state Departnient of Education oftion on Monday set a March 1 deadline for -the Little Rock about $1.8 million set aside in an School District to establish and account held jointly by the dis- fully fund a joint escrow account trict and the state. Latest docu- to hold the districts repayments ments on file with state Educa- on a $20 million state desegrega- tion Department staff show that a tion loan. The board directed Assistant ance of about $999,000. Attorney General Tim Gauger to, file a complaint with U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who ongoing dispute between the monitors the districts desegrega- state officials and the district _ . , tion efforts, if the escrow account over the terms of a 1989 financial funds in 1998 in the escrow ac- is not in place by the date. settlement between the district According to calculations by , and the state.  The state a^eed at the time to loan the district the money witli ficials, the district should have district-held account has a baiThe state boards vote Monday is the latest development in an the understanding that the loan would be forgiven if the district could narrow the academic dis- . . parity between black and white ' tatives of the state and school dis- students on a standardized achievement test. The district has until Dec. 31 this year to meet the goal. In the meantime, the district was obligated by the settlement agreement to b6gin periodically setting aside count to repay the state in the event the goal is not met. The board directed Gauger last summer to pursue joint access to the Little Rock account as well as full funding. On a related matter, represen- trict have never identified the test that is to be used to measure the disparity in black and white i students achievement. Discussions on that issue are continuing. Charity Smith, an assistant director in the Education Department, said Monday.I Arkansas Demcxrrat ^(ijitazcHc | THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2000  LR schools set up plan to repay state . Move taken in time to keep from facing default lawsuit BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS BEHOCRArO.AZi\nTTE Little Rock School District officials put almost SSOO.OOO into a state loan repayment account and took other steps by a deadline Wednesday to avoid being sued for default by the state. Mark Milhollen, district manager of financial sendees, transferred $465,632 into a loan repayment account, bringing the account to $1.48 million, the amount - owed to date.\nAlso Wednesday, district and 'state officials exchanged drafts of la memorandum of understanding\nthat would obligate the Little Rock /district to convert its loan repay\ninent account into a joint escrow 'account that would be accessible two years. Ito both district and state officials,  not just district officials. terms, the drstrict will not have io Last month, the Arkansas j repay the state loan if by Dcc.-31 Board of Education directed As- ! the composite scores earned .by sistant Attorney General Timothy black students on a standardized Gauger to file a complaint in fed- test reach at least 90 percent of tlie eral court against the states scores of white students. .largest school system if district of- ---------------------------------------------- The test is to be selected by tlie ficials failed by Wednesday to es- j state and the district. That test, tablish the joint account and make however, has not been selected. overdue payments on a $20 million The proposed memorandum of un- loan made by the state to offset derstanding notes that a disagree- district desegregation costs be- ment exists between the parties on tween 1990 and 1999. . The proposed memorandum of understanding was not finalized by the end of the day Wednesday. But Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education, said the districts attempts to meet .Estate demands satisfied him. He .said he wanted time to review the :draft of the memo with his staff but did not expect to file a court ..'complaint. Even though the [joint escrow] '.account is not set up. Little Rock . has done what they needed to do,  'Simon said. I'm satisfied they . -ihave complied to this point with \u0026gt;*\nthe boards deadline. They have ,\nmade the good-faith effort to get  .^something to us. Its just that our 'staff needs today [Wednesday] to .z look at it.  In the two-page draft memoran- idum, the district pledges to repay See LOAN, Page 7B Loan  Continued from Page 1B\nprincipal and interest on the loan. The district also seeks to manage die account and have the authority to periodically draw from the account to offset lulls in llie flow of local tax revenues to tlie district'. Any amounts withdrawn from the joint account would-be repaid with interest within six months of tlie witlidrawal, accorfr ing to the proposed language'of the memo. Milhollen said another payment of $353,220 will be made' to the repayment account March To, and $75,000 more will be paid May Other payments of various amounts are scheduled into I at least the next two decades. The $20 million loan from the state was a provision of a 1989. financial settlement between the state and the school system. The state distributed the loan proceeds over 10 years in increments of no more than $6 million every According to the settlement whether the requirements for loan forgiveness have been met. The draft memo Birther says tlie district and the state wish to continue discussions aimed at resolving jlie dispute. If the district meets the student achievement goal, the money in the joint escrow account will be returned to the district. Otherwise it will be returned to the state.  The district got its first $6 million of the $20 million loan in September 1990. The district was obligated by tlie original 1989 agreement and by a more detailed loan agreement in September 1990 to begin repaying that portion of the loan witliin seven years into a special escrow account. , The loan was to be repaid in'20 equal installments witli a 3 per- :ent interest rate. ii 'i\n'. The districts first payment'of $300,000 was due to the escrow account in September 1997. Over time the district set aside some repayment funds but not into a jointly held account and not (br the full amounts owed.' ' f Members of the state Board of Education began publicly , questioning the lack of a joint account and delinquent payments last summer. er(  FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 2000  LR schools,  I  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas attorney generals office have signed a memorandum of understanding whereby the district idedges that its payments on a $20 million state loan will go to a joint- lyjowned bank account. According to the memorandum, the school district has the authority to make investment decisions for the account. The district is obligated to provide the state Department of Education a monthly statement showing account activity. ''The agreement further gives the Little Rock district  with permission from the Education De- state agree on loan repayment plan partment  the ability to draw from the account at those times of the year when the flow of tax revenue to the district ebbs. Any such amounts withdrawn by the district must be repaid with interest within six montts. The memorandum follows a dispute between the state and district over the terms of the loan. The district obtained the low- interest loan as a result of a 1989 desegregation agreement with the state. The original agreement says that the district will not have to repay the loan if, by Dec. 31 of this year, it can narrow the achievement disparity between black and white students as measured by standardized tests. But the terms of the loan also called for the district to begin making payments in 1997 to a joint escrow account The state Board of Education complained that the district was making insufficient payments to an account that only the district controlled. State board members said in February that they would ask a federal judge to enforce the terms of the 1989 agreement if the district did not comply by March 1. The district complied by the specified date, and the two-page memorandum was worked out.October 17. 2 0 0 0 LR district, state work on solutions Desegregation, funding for schools on the agenda BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE At the urging of three Arkansas legislators, attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District are quietly working toward a settlement of school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and prolong the districts federal desegregation lawsuit. i Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, j said Monday that attorneys for the governors office, the state Department of Education and the attorney generals office have met at least twice in recent weeks with representatives of the Little Rock district on the complex issues. Those issues include the Little Rock districts possible payback of a million state loan, state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and the impact of a recent Little Rock tax increase on Jim Argue school funding elsewhere in\" the state. Argue, who has served as an informal facilitator at the meetings, said he was cautiously optimistic that a resolution of the financial issues is forthcoming. I dont want to talk about what the compromises might look like because we are at a very delicate stage, Argue said. But I do think the parties are negotiating in good faith, he added. I do think they are keeping the interest of school kids at heart. Hopefully, we can bring a resolution to some really difficult issues and clear the path so that the Little Rock School Districts removal from federal court can be a moment of celebration. District officials are hoping that See ISSUES, Page 10A FH o o CiSm p sS-o ff- O'S O S 5o S3 5' a3_.ffp^|3 jap?is.gs-|-\u0026amp;s-| o 2\nt\u0026amp;3S go-oE--csS:L \u0026amp;\u0026amp; Og )5-2. oKE-S:-ic8n?B: s _  . 0-0 e!O-ff\nS  2-^325^^ TO ?+ O'rtA!-3'\u0026lt;VP s3 c1 -50.^ o  Di Di O trt ! .o O  00 fp !3 2 cn U u uu uQ I Vt s gas 3 Ss 2^g2 3-^ CT 3 O a  *. '?c p S ' 3a S^-EH- S-p \u0026gt; |\u0026amp;S3g-o ^'S^Q.!^ g P ' \"p-ga p S. Di (O 3 \u0026gt; 3^ Di 5. P3SP-5-B V'\u0026amp; \u0026amp;3 ffffBSgSgC..  fo Q-P\"\" S-~s-.^ O'? R ^oS-pSp-oSKoP-o\u0026amp; E.pff'Sgsg'Po^gso. g-H-ia. S \u0026amp; a g \u0026lt; l-Sf 11P S.0 o 3 g li ff- s-p\"|g'isa' Sgsf PohS'p^p^W^ ? 3-2 3fB,23wS'^ y 3 O XO o a 5 \u0026gt;1 ^0.3 -3  \u0026amp; \u0026gt;3 CA CD  p 3 CA O CA V) o (D Q SB'S =1\" a o CA  3 g O w ^gg.hrJS o X n5 *\u0026lt; p o 2  s * 3-\" a rt\u0026gt; 5 fp a o CA \u0026amp;3 g o\u0026lt;fi g\" o  Sh g-S !.'S 2 g 5 StA O Ca O O- r* e g 5 o O rt tv jr-gS- gs CA c g CP fP S?- P O 5 s rti o-\" S-~g !c 5-cacpcpO^q2.o, 5o.-cp3Qi=:cp- 4 P' S o 2.P 2. P-3 p? 55 'P3 S 3s o cr Di CA - n gg O' p K? rs jS- a Q ti. (D T i off'S .. \u0026amp;\u0026amp;g g CS.2-3  Is Bo CA  alg S-W \u0026amp;!? S-g-P I\" 5'S S-a SS \u0026amp;S  \u0026amp; 5- o s-bL K'o og-w BlS ct^.q 2 rt\u0026gt; ca  M 2 fD o \u0026amp;  f? 5^3 5KC^S.^oQ.- w3 2CD 2Di. S is BS.ffaffS'' B\u0026amp;p q I'P Qh C^1S.^,\u0026lt;P (?p \u0026amp;3'^ 3\"'  QpI| ?s 's^ t?ip \u0026amp;\u0026amp; ia oSog'CS'SS' S? a.3'BSQ? I- CA CA s S 3 !?a s s  a S-S o-\u0026amp;^S 2. rt f-i fP C3 El. . r- 3 \u0026amp;s sr \"O fP O 3 - 3.  rti O fP fcj 1-j o XJ o oa ^O--S2.* *0!- ^9\n3 S3.2 2-3,3 o 2 o o 3 2-J?ao CP w ii^hir o 1 o 3 CA 2 o IS oa-2^^'3o   g as 0-^0 g^giS-'ga^ffgSo g ^iS.O ffi o O 0-0 o o Bo Eco!?^ \"- dap o * gl fP \u0026amp;\u0026lt; p n\u0026gt; (p o \u0026lt;p w .S H 2.H-Q.ctni a S 2. pP3 \u0026amp;Boo 212^3^5:3o c\u0026amp;x ^gP\u0026amp;^e\u0026amp;O'g g 3-^'^ S. 2 -2 2 \"* ............gB c gg E'Q EP^r. EP 0.2'? Eg-?- 11  2 CA 3 C It CT S.g  QC r w rr O3 g ^ '. 2 a\u0026amp;ff 3 3 ogrg.'^ o S.s:g  E'a S a o. g  Sg'gSS.wSso H S.3g.?.S'?5 teK\n3. \u0026lt;P o c w CA CP X p CA 2 03 S 3 3 \u0026amp;g5 J? fp s CA o P r (P aP ggc- 3i p t*- S*- T\" 3* cB g S'  ? o 2  g  o' g S' '!\u0026gt; 3,pGQ2SH ^pa3r3'B . ff 9 E- H- Ct 3 P C O 3- - \" 3 \u0026amp;. B |e 8 g\u0026lt;|'g ff-g 3 hS g aSg'Jp .3 CP I2 o w 3 S2. lIl'? Ill CP S K- -3 g fP U3  S S S  1 CA 0-3 g Jj' - ?r 3 o o ' w !ZR 2i K ^S 3-'fl Cr.T3 ttO-O O O S O o  fft o o 3 O CA n 2 BJ 2. CA iOf. M CiAs .-1 3M ^- 2\u0026gt; tJ r* s\u0026amp;'R g5 T.0.0 0??- S 0.1 o.Sa a'\u0026amp;SS5gS|\u0026amp; \"S-SpS-a\" gaS: Ssgs.gal ca  3\" O 3   . P 3 s. 2 fp B.g-'g B rf 2- O'. 2 'OR.B tt'O'o'S^\" P ' \u0026amp;.P35A\u0026amp; (S3Po\"=c' Eg?g(g P 9 SSo P (S o *0 fp tn 3-a (TO (P B c/i O 3 o \u0026lt;P 3-\nS S- B-ff o ff\u0026amp;d'^2 5'03 i^ffS'o 3. |ScSXS?^|'gS|ffBgt5. ss a 3-3-2 ^pw,. SfToW-oS \"S .S C3_ O SpgS, CA Q 3 5.^g'?- ^3 2 2: fP T .Q o  kTct M \" CA P I (P -3 w'2 A.sirjslIjHi 'A P CA  3. ^^OCA S El' CA O  S-2 3  O fti o pr a?-I CP CP  O ! e-f' rt\u0026gt; |sB s\n t 9Cr\u0026lt;'fDT3Oa3s: 32o332oo\u0026lt; 3 a .o CA CA p (p CA p I. CA S' \u0026amp; 2OmB*l2OO2 ^P ,,, CP 3  3 3'W =-5:^K o Q.-r*^2 \u0026amp; ft.fDT3M3'OOvO . 3 r TO . M n s o a(P aK-sB t  unuAT, 2UU1^ r LR schools, state near deal on BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Ijttle Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating:  The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan.  Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district  nie impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no ' proof that the district Is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages\nthat we may have a deal that everyone is going to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. desegregation funds Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and Timothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement. Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about tlie negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was . See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools  Continued from Page 1B frustrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming. A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dee. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether die loan should be forgiven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District\nand Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,: transportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody.8A  FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2001  Deal can ease LR schools loan burden Lawyers for state, district work out possible solution BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRATCAZETTE Attorneys for the state and the Little Rock School District have reached a tentative agreement that would relieve the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million loan and preserve millions in state funds for magnet schools and other desegregation costs until at least 2008. In return, the Little Rock district will structure its finances, particularly money from a recent tax increase, so that the state will not be required to pump $125 million to other Arkan^ school districts. The proposed a^eement allows the school district to continue efforts to win release from federal court supervision without jeopardizing state funding for de- se^egation programs. Both the Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board have scheduled meetings for Monday to decide whether to ratify the agreement that has been the topic of negotiations since last September. Im just pleased we were able to reach agreement, said Ray Simon, director of the Arkansas Department of Education. It brings closure to these issues and it allows us to focus on student achievement for all students. Simon said he will recommend that the state board approve the agreement when it meets at 2 pun. Monday via telephone conference call. We are wearing big smiles See LRSD, Page 8A STTTil E -ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Dese i  I _ BE ii I I ^^iS^ockSciiool^^iS^ M . - citing statistics ds evidence ........ .nl^iiareffnrt\u0026lt;i to comply with a 1998 ^fTlWWCTTHGHEHS z-OlsMensabllqated to maintain a E^affthat is approximately PEBCENI BUCK 3n ~sr MCX ~1S1 WMiE/onn 1205 UW HGOROUS COURSES^ ranomiiffliT MCIEKE AJflebra I Geometry Algebra II Biology ChorrifettY Physics 5 w Tzr I 1M TOTO. % MCKASt 3t% -----73% -----HIT rar 'LO^' BUCK % MCHJtSE W% 8% ------0% 51% ~~TW% ADVHKD PUCEMENT COURSE ENROIIMENT n SUSPENSIONS BUCK 5341 WMIE 900 052 ran. _yB 1997-98 2000-'01 % change TOIM L5 OK BUCK fll ~7S7 09% KT COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAM TESFIAKERS ^gZ5g3BBaBWHMARKEXAM:lJIElU^ or above proficiency Hl _JiBL = +31% HJKX _291 +50% WMIE __as +1% h GRA0E5SnNF0RDKHIEVEMENTTEST:MAni Scores in percentiles 50 percent= national average Ml JL 31 iUCK 23 WMIE _S S5 'SOURCE: Little Rock School District 1997-'98 t9900 % change ran nt 31% BUCK MB =1 EXnUCURnCULAR ACTMIY PARrailMIION 1997-'98 1999-'00 BUCK 2g WMIE/Oim 393 --------902 DROPOUT RATE AT HIGH SCHOOLS 1997-96 1999-00 ran. 5Mm%i BUCK Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/KIRK MONTGOMERYI P for desegregation programs that in- kllwv elude magnet schools, student transfers, and special transporta-  Continued from Page 1A tion as well as money for extraor- afound here, Little Rock Super- dinary employee health insurance intendent Les Gamine said. We and retirement costs. The district, think the right things have been which has a $200 million budget, done and Im really excited for the gets approximately million a school district and for the kids year for those costs. here. This sets the tone for us to begin a whole new era. The negotiated agreement specifically says the state will not Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, try to modify or terminate any of its was equally pleased and said he obligation to Little Rock as enu- would encourage his fellow lawmakers to support the agreement. merated in a 1989 agreement until June 1, 2008. The newest agree- Its cause for celebration, he mentwhich would be an amendsaid. This agreement represents ment to the 1989 settlementdoes the resolution of some extremely not specify what happens at that important and chronically trouble- time. The state farther agreed to forgive and release the Little Rock some issues that we have focused oh for years. Argue was one of three lawmak- district from any obligation to re- ers who last fall encouraged state pay the first $15 million of a $20 and Little Rock district officials to million state desegregation loan pool together several outstanding given to the district over the course desegregation and financial issues of the 1990s. The state will forgive the re- and resolve them as a package. maining $5 million in loans if the Sen. Jodie Mahony, D-El Dorado, and Sen. Dave Bisbee, R-Rogers, district obtains a final order from were the other two. the federal courts granting it com- A lot of hard work has gone plete unitary status and release into this, Aiiue said. And I re- from federal court supervision by member that a lot of people July 1,2004. thought it was a pipe dream. It was $20 million loan was a con- an instance where we were looking tentious provision of the 1989 flnan- at four issues and we couldnt re- cial settlement between the state wed go right back to where we solve any of them as we dealt with mid the Pulaski County school dis- them individually. tricts. AccoMing to the 1989 agree- As for his legislative colleagues, ment, the district would not have to Im going to encourage them to repay the loan if the scores earned understand that all parties were at black students on standardized the table, that everybody is giving fest scores were raised to at least 90 and everybody is gaining, he said, percent of the scores earned by If they choose to spoil the deal, white students by Dec. 31,2000. ..^'d o- Ls, ..e However, the state and the Lit- were with four big problems and tie Rock district never agreed on no resolution. the standardized test or the type of Gov. Mike Huckabee was out of score that should be used to detertown Thursday but said through a mine whether the district met its spokesman that he wanted to re- obligation. .................. The Little Rock district is oblig- serve comment until after the boards acted on the agreement. The tentative agreement was ated by the new agreement to accelerate its efforts to sell construction bonds and raise its level of circulating among various state and local officials on the same day debt from about $6 million to about the Little Rock School District sub- $11.8 million by early 2002, saving District voters approved a 5-mill mitted to U.S. Chief District Judge the state up to $125 million. Susan Webber Wright, a 167-page report of statistics showing the dis- tax increase last year for renovat- tricts efforts to comply with its ing buildings and expanding tech- 1998 desegregation plan. nology systems. As soon as that dis- A motion accompanied the re- trict uses that money to finance port asking Wright to give all other construction debt, the money wont parties in the 18-year-old desegre- be counted as revenue available to gation lawsuit 20 days to make any educate students in the district. objections to the districts asser- Thats important to state offi- tions of compliance. The district cials because the amount of rev- also asked the judge to declare the enue per child in the Little Rock district unitary, or desegregated to district is the standard by which ..................................  state funding for all other school the extent practicable, on June 30. A declaration of unitaiy status districts is calculated. Every dis- would mean that the district would trict is guaranteed 80 percent of be released from continued feder- the funding available in Little court monitoring and involve- Rock. Unless the district uses its ment in its operations. The district new revenue to finance construe-  has been involved in federal tion, the state will have to pump in school desegregation lawsuits for more money for other school sys- more than 40 years. terns in 2001-02. The $125 million The current lawsuit began in cost could wipe out money that 1982, when the Little Rock district Huckabee and other lawmakers sued the state and the other two want to increase teacher salaries. Tulaoki CuuiiLy ouliuul uiauiuU, Those raises, if made law, are exseeking consolidation as an end to pected to cost $122 million annual- Pulaski County school districts, racial segregation in the Pulaski ly when fully implemented. County piAlic schools. The federal In the proposed agreement, the courts found that the defendants district and state pledge to work to- were at fault but stopped short of gether for unitary status for the Lit- consolidation. The districts and tie Rock district. The agreement the state ultimately agreed to a fi- states that it can be modified by nancial settlement of more than the district and state based on fur- $129 million to be paid out over the ther consultation and discussion course of the 1990s. However, the with attorneys for the Joshua interdistricts continue to receive money venors, who represent the black from the state for ongoing desegre- students in the district in the ongo- ing desegregation lawsuit John Walker, the attorney for gation expenses. The proposed agreement between the state and district was the intervenors, could not be not submitted to the judge with the reached for comment Thursday. compliance report, but the two are tied together. Some of the attorneys involved in crafting the agreement included Little Rock district attorneys Chris Heller for the Little Rock and School Board members have School District\nTimothy Gauger said they want to pursue unitary and Scott Smith for the Departstatus without a fear that the state ment of Education, and Olan would try to withdraw its funding Reeves for the governors office.o CM CM LR, state boards sign school funding pact Agreement maintaining desegregation programs called a marvelous step forward o JI V. I ! Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/JASON ANTHES LiWe Rock School District Superintendent Les Carnine signs an agreement that will continue state funding for the school system's desegregation programs. BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Arkansas Board of Education and the Little Rock School Board endorsed a landmark agreement Monday that will continue state funding for the citys desegregation programs and save millions in state funding to other districts. The state Education Board adopted the agreement with an 8-1 vote and little discussion in a telephone conference call. The Little Rock School Board followed suit three hours later with a 7-O vote. We're cautiously optimistic the settlement with the Little Rock School District will lead to a permanent conclusion of what has been a long, tedious court battle, Gov. Mike Huckabee said Monday through a spokesman. Little Rock School Board President Katherine Mitchell called the agreement historic and thanked all who were involved in its production. Baker Kumis, another Little Rock board member, said\nThis is bigger news than a presidential library, a new arena or anything like that. This is a marvelous step forward. The agreement paves the way for the Little Rock district to pursue release from federal court monitoring of its long-standing desegregation efforts without jeopardizing about $20 million a year in state support for the districts magnet schools and other desegregation-related expenses. The eight-page agreement crafted by attorneys for the district and the state at the urging of a handful of legislators, says the state will not attempt to cut desegregation funding to the Little Rock School Dis- trict at least until after June 1,2008. The agreement further relieves the district of repaying mosL if not all, of a $20 million state desegregation loan. In return, the agreement obligates the Little Rock district to vigorously pursue release from federal court monitoring of its desegregation efforts. The district also has pledged to structure its finances  specifically money raised by a recent 5-mill tax increase  so the districts revenue per student wont increase dramatically. That would force the state to infuse as much $125 million into other school districts to help them keep up with funding levels in Little Rock The amount of funding Little Rock has per student is the standard by which state funding for all See AGREEMENT, Page 8A Agreement  Continued from Page 1A other Arkansas school districts is calculated. Eveiy district is guaranteed at least 80 percent of the funding available to the Little Rock district. Hie district will accelerate the sale of construction bonds, increasing its debt from about $6 million to more than $11.8 million by early 2002. Money eamiarked for debt payments wont be counted as revenue for educating Little Rock students. After Mondays vote, attorneys for both agencies will submit a joint request to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to modify an earlier. court-approved agreement between the state and the school district that included the $20 million loan. According to that 1989 agreement the Little Rock district was to repay the loan if standardized test scores of black students were not raised to at least 90 percent of the scores of white students by Dec. 31,2000. The loan proved to be a point of contention because the two agencies could never agree on the test The newest agreement calls for the state to forgive the first $15 million of the low-interest loan right away. The district will be relieved of the remaining $5 million payment if it is released from court supervision by July 1,2004. The district asked Wright for unitary status  or a declaration that it is desegregated to the extent practicable just last week. Timothy Gauger, an attorney who represented the state in the agreement negotiations, said Monday that should the federal courts reject the modified language on the $20 million loan, the loan provision of the new agreement can be severed from the rest of the agreement, which would still stand. Ray Simon, director of the Department of Education, acknowledged that some of the states districts would like to share in a $125 million infusion of state aid based on Little Rocks increased wealth. Producing that money would likely jeopardize efforts going on now in the state Legislature by Huckabee and Education Department leaders to pass a $3,000 teacher raise over the next two years. The real detriment would have been to the state, trying to provide that money [to match the Little Rock funding], said Simon. State Education Board member Betty Pickett of Conway cast the sole no vote on e agreement She said later that she felt the state was pushed into the agreement by a provision of the state funding system that guarantees districts will get at least 80 percent of what Little Rock gets. That guarantee is commonly referred to as the federal range ratio. If that is too high a standard for us to keep and we have to manipulate it, maybe we should look at it Maybe we should do something about that rather than halving to enter into an agreement that has so many ramifications. During the meeting Pickett questioned whether the agreement would have to be renegotiated if the Little Rock district should win another tax increase within the next seven years. Gauger said that probably would be necessary. Reaction to the agreement from an organization that represents all school districts was tempered Monday. Charles Knox, associate director of the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, said those educators who have followed the case never really expected Little Rock would have to repay the loam As for the potential increase of as much as $125 million into the state funding system based on increased Little Rock wealth, educators generally recognized that the state couldnt afford it, Knox said. The Little Rock board approved the agreement as former superintendent Don Roberts and incoming Superintendent T. Kenneth James watched. The agreement signed Monday, by Simon and Little Rock schools Superintendent Les Gamine is the latest development tn a lawsuit filed by the Little Rock district in 1982 against the state and the other two' Pulaski County school districts.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"mus_sovcom_1-79-0","title":"Lois Chaffee","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Lois Chaffee, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Lois Chaffee"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=126%7C1%7C79%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_6-55-0","title":"Loron L. Acker","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Loron L. Acker, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Loron L. Acker"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=610%7C6%7C55%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["Text"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_1-37-0","title":"Louise Beason, Laurel Miss.","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louise Beason, Laurel Miss., Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louise Beason, Laurel Miss."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=54%7C1%7C37%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_3-22-1","title":"Louisiana - Legislation on Segrgation","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louisiana - Legislation on Segrgation, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louisiana - Legislation on Segrgation"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=305%7C3%7C22%7C%7C1"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_3-81-0","title":"Louvenia Knight (Alias Louvenia Williamson)","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Louvenia Knight (Alias Louvenia Williamson), Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Louvenia Knight (Alias Louvenia Williamson)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=498%7C3%7C81%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_2-94-0","title":"Lowndes County","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Lowndes County, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Lowndes County"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=394%7C2%7C94%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_6-78-0","title":"MACE - Mississippi Action for Community Education","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from MACE - Mississippi Action for Community Education, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["MACE - Mississippi Action for Community Education"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=656%7C6%7C78%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":["Text"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_97-83-0","title":"Mac Mohead","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1994/2006"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["from Mac Mohead, Sovereignty Commission records, Mississippi Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of Series 2515 : Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records Online, 1994-2006"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Mississippi","Civil rights workers--Mississippi","African American civil rights workers--Mississippi","Social reformers--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Mac Mohead"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Mississippi. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/imagelisting.php?foldercheckbox%5B%5D=1349%7C97%7C83%7C%7C0"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records are state government records made available to the public pursuant to American Civil Liberties Union v. Fordice, 969 F.Supp. 403 (S.D.Miss.1994). The web-enabled version of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission Records is intended for public use in research, teaching, and private study in accordance with the provisions of the Fair Use clause of the United States Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). MDAH makes no warranty or assurances that materials contained in this collection are free from U.S. copyright claims or other restrictions on free use and display. It is the user's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or distributing materials found in this collection. MDAH requests that prior to publication of Sov. Com. images the user submit an MDAH Broadcast/Publication Permission form for approval by the Department. This form must be accompanied by documentation which proves that copyright requirements have been satisfied. Contact MDAH Reference Staff for details on how to obtain and complete the B/PP form: (601) 576 6876 or refdesk@mdah.state.ms.us. There are no MDAH Use Fees associated with use of Sov. Com. images. MDAH asks that each image used in a presentation, display, or publication be accompanied by a credit line, which at a minimum includes the name of this collection, the unique resource identifier for each image, the name of this institution, and URL. ; Cite images according to the following structure: Original Creator, \"Title\", Original creation date (if known), Unique Resource Identifier, Series Number and Title, Archival Repository, date of last web page revision, image location/URL, (image viewed on date)."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1120","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"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/1120"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n7- 9-92 THU 10 14 Magnet Revieiv Committee 1900\n\\\north 1\\fain Street Suite 101 North Littk Rock, Arbnsn:\n72114 Donna Grady Crear E~8Clltivq oir~f::'jr Dec~mber 18, 1990 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, United States Distric~ Court F.astern District of Arkansas C. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. o. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: In September of 1990, the Little Rock School District presented the Magnet Review Committee with the proposed budget for the interdistrict magnet schools for the 1990-91 school year. This budgeted amount of $12,735,230 represents a $270.00 per student increase which results in bringing the per pupil expenditure from $3,100 to $3,370. During its December 4, 1990 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee adopted the 1990-91 budget proposed for the interdistrict magnet school program and changed the per pupil operational charge to $3,370 by a vote of 3 to 2, with one representative being absent. (This vote reflects a reversal of an earlier vote in which four votes were cast against the budget increase and two votes were cast for it.) In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Magnet Review Committee is now submitting this proposed budget to the Court for its review. The programs are operating currently under the budget . adopted by the MRC, Your review and response regarding this action will be appreciated. We will await notification of your response regarding this action. Please contact our office should you need additional information. Sincerely,\n:t7:att\n=. ' Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Pulaski County Special School District [) . . /} \u0026lt;.l('~ ~., r(_ Dana Chadwick North Little Rock School District ~ J/4/24~rr- Marcia Harding L-Arkansas Department of Education P.02 7- 9-92 THU 10 15 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Page 2 4.-. -d._-\n,J Q. '~ I') Evelyn Ja son Joshua Intervenors !~/iL~ 1 Estelle Matthis Little Rock School District MRC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Magnet Review Committee C,\u0026amp;-4,,'to-t,\u0026lt;\u0026amp;!, c(~ Clearence Lovell Arkansas Department of Education ~yf~M~ ---------- 2,281,009 2,755,142 1,687,077 3,333 2,450 4,275 !:- ,,,. lSu 56,000 29,000 27,000 r.,,~ ~\nrpur 186,028 233,039 88,821 ~ ..... ,..,. tt~ate 81,972 106,455 60,889 ~  ,t.---f--\nCapita 29,195 31,436 24,071 t ~\n,),, ... ~\n.s.- 1,100 5,500 1.0112~(' trndire' ~~,i.~.\n:~~. lV !\n.:-n~M .. ,f,~. .t ,.h.,,l,,_\nGifte ( '\u0026lt;!\u0026lt;. ,Plan }~\u0026gt;,A\n~~ iRea 1~-X'Yo'.,)\u0026lt;,, tSde i'f~g-1 .. .~ .-- --------- 357,628 407,880 :ws,oss ----------- ----------- 2,638,637 3,163,022 1,892,133  :  . ' ~ 1,~ . ' ~l~:r\nr,1,,--fu'J! : :}t\ni\nf ----------- 1,427,244 12,509 15,000 85,873 75,042 12,675 700 201,799 ----------- 1,629,044 1,060,744 5,170 30:soo 42,025 34,718 21,306 ----------- 133,719 _______ \\ __ 1,194,463 1,075,181 172,389 137,433 ------- 1,385,003 2,000 27,500 61,210 48,500 19,753 --------- 158,963 --------- 1,543,966 8,441,022 1,160,699 994,497 --------- 10,596,219 29,737 185,000 696,998 407,576 138,436 7,300 369,322 47,300 38,487 2,000 40,000 6,880 972 2,558 26,957 --------- 1,999,522 ----------- 12,595,741 --=======:. ==========-= --------- 235,789 107,518 11,218 -J -j I C f--' rn 1) MAY-29-91 WED 17:46 U, S, DI ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO, 7406096 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR C 82 866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., MRS. KATHERINE KNIGH'l', ET AL,, ORDER P. 04 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT ARKANSAS MAY 2 9 1991 ~~R~.,~ y DEP, CLERK PLAINTIFF, DEFD-.\"DANTS I INTERVENORS, INTERVENOR$, Without opposition, the proposed budget submitted by the Magnet Review Committee increasing -che per pupil operational charge to $3,370.00 is approved. DATED this 29th day of May, 1991, (JS/US\nAN~ WEBhBER ~IHT4 ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE '-.. .... Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 2, 1991 Ms. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This letter is in response to your correspondence regarding the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet school budgets for the six stipulation magnets. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, in its annual Report to the Court (Section IX, Interdistrict Magnet School Budgets, page 99, attached, dated May 27, 1991), called attention to the Magnet Review Committee's difficulty of cost containment due to the lack of input on hiring and personnel contract negotiations. The $312.00 per pupil increase requested on September 24, 1991, for this school year's proposed budget is largely due to increases in teacher salaries and Act 10 requirements. In some instances, expenditures other than teacher salaries were actually lower than the 1990-91 school year. The legend on the lower portion of the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget presented to the Court via your office on September 24, 1991 clearly delineates the areas of increase. The cover letter accompanying the budget also notes the reasons for the proposed increases. An item by. item review is best comprehended in a dialogue/reporting session. Such a session will be arranged upon request if needed. As usual, the Magnet Review Committee worked closely with the host district and the principals to assure the accurate and efficient expenditure of tax dollars. We are confident that every effort was, and is, being made to keep costs within reason. Ms. Ann Brown -2- December 2, 1991 The programs are operating and dollars are being expended. Therefore, a careful review and timely response to this request is appreciated. Sincerely yours, Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl I ' I : I I I i SECTION IX INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETS The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) adopted budget for operation of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for the 1989-90 school year was $12,781,300.00. This figure was computed on a per pupil cost of $3,100 times a total seating capacity figure of 4,123 for the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for that school year. The fiscal year for expenditure of this budget was July 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990. Initially, each of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools was allotted a proportional share of funds to budget based upon its seating capacity. However, following close budgetary review, monies were shifted among the programs where necessary to accommodate program and services needs. The adopted budget was submitted by the MRC to the Court for approval. The Interdistrict Magnet School Program operated in accordance with the adopted budget during the 1989-90 school year. Final expenditures for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools during the 1989-90 school year were as follows: Mann Parkview Booker Carver Gibbs Williams TOTAL * Average Interdistrict Magnet Schools Cost Per Pupil 1989-90 (provided by Little Rock School District) 89-90 EXP ADM* PER PUPIL $2,598,149.00 880 2,952.44 $3,044,434.00 798 3,815.08 $1,849,132.00 633 2,921.22 $1,599,842.00 600 2,666.40 $1,130,522.00 337 3,354.66 $1,423,412.00 509 2,796.49 $11,645,491.00 3,757 3,099.68 Daily Membership The operating expenditures and per pupil cost rates varied across the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools. This variance is the same experienced within any school district, reflecting the general differences found in operating elementary versus secondary schools (junior and senior high schools) and special programs. In the magnet schools, the variance was also attributable to ongoing start-up costs of programs involving unique program design and the associated personnel, equipment and staff development needs. In summary, the total expenditure for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools for the 1989-90 school year was $11,645,491.00 at an average per pupil expenditure of $3,100. The allocated budget ($12,781,300.00) was based on magnet school seating capacity (4,123) while the expended budget was based on the ADM of 3,757.00 (actual adjusted enrollment). The total expenditure is in keeping with the guidelines set forth by the Court for operation of the interdistrict magnet schools. While the Magnet Review Committee does not hire or evaluate interdistrict magnet school personnel, the effect of personnel contract negotiations on salary directly impacts the budget. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work with the host district in configuring the budget for the next year. However, it should be noted that cost  containment is difficult when teacher contract negotiations cause budget fluctuations beyond the Magnet Review Committee's control. 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 W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 R D E R FILED US. DISTRICT COUA'T EASTERN OISTRl9f ARKANSAS MAR 161992 cARL / el:s, ~ By: Ir (l II 1 OEP. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) for approval of the 1991-92 magnet school budget proposal. The proposal was communicated to the Court in a letter dated September 24, 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on October 9, 1991. submitted. The court has reviewed the budget and approves it as The Court notes that the 1991-92 budget for the six original magnet schools is $13,775,416.00, bringing the magnet school per pupil expenditure for the current school year to $3,682.00, This amount represents an increase of approximately $312.00 per pupil above the amount spent for each magnet school student in 1990-91. An increase in the magnet school budget has been requested by the MRC and granted by the Court for at least the past three budget cycles. The Court expects the MRC to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet school budget that will ensure efficient management of resources and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The MRC has also asked the Court to approve a modification in the M-to-M transfer policy adopted by the school districts' Student Assignment Officers Committee in February, 1991. The M-to-M transfer policy had been included in a lengthy status report on interdistrict magnet school development and progress which was published in May 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on June 19, 1991. There was no indication that the transfer policy contained in the report was a departure from previous policy or that the MRC was seeking Court approval of a policy modification. The change in M-to-M transfer policy is approved. In the future, the Court will consider Magnet Review Committee requests for approval of budget adjustments or changes regarding any other matter only if such requests {1) are made in a timely fashion, well in advance of the anticipated need for the change\n( 2) are presented in a communication written for the express purpose of presenting such proposal to the Court\n{3) are set in context, including a clear rationale for the request that contains an explanation of the circumstances or events which have prompted the request, the expected impact of the requested change, identification of those individuals, groups, programs or operations which will be affected by the change, and the anticipated date by which the change is needed. Any change requested by the MRC should not be implemented by that Committee nor the parties represented on that Committee prior to the court's approval. DATED this /~-1:--day of March, 1992. Tl-llS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN )MPLIANCE Wfn~LE 58 ANDtm~!?:a) FRCP J JN ,3- t1-'+). BY ___ J/5\n----~ ~2r~2r~ TED STATES DISTRICT UDGE I I I j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR June 1, 1992 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Littl~ Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: 72201 ECEIVED JUN 1 1992 omce ot Desegregation Monitoring Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, ~~~r( -.Manager of SuppoJt Services JI/ch Attachment cc: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\\project.wpd LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Al though the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. 3. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. Consequently, they have asked us to use a 3% annual increase in these costs. We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present updated projections when these figures are known. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. 4. The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for 1992-93. Al though this cannot be completed until union negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of a balanced budget. The projections herein assume that sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of State law. These reductions are shown as a line item entitled 11 1992-93 Budget Reductions\". If the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. 5. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 and carried forward. Additional shortfalls will occur if further reductions or increased revenues are not found. We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, 1993. This will not be required if sufficient reduction can be found. Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1. 5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget. LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires discussion. In the years through the 1991-92 school year, the cost of programs in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. Therefore, we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. 7. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so here, we believe, would create confusion for the Court and for the public. We can provide information on federal funds if the Court desires. 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. Any additional will be covered with second-lien issues. 10. The 1993-94 reduction in program #10, Academic Support Programs, reflects the completion of payments for PAL equipment. Some funding is added for replacement of this equipment. 11. The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost of tracking them exceeds the value of the information. The costs are not omitted\nthey are just not broken out. 12. The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, we can submit revised budgets if the Court desires. Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. 13. The fifth and sixth positions ( from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. Since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above. Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. After the normal budget planning process is complete, a memo will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. D. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,196,979 39,088,120 40,093,227 45,616,117 47,086,512 48,506,276 40% PULLBACK 21,081,833 21,736,595 25,253,744 25,996,645 26,766,307 27,518,335 DELINQUENT TAXES 3,900,000 3,500,000 3,805,000 3,819,150 3,933,725 4,051,736 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 400,000 365,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 225,000 227,250 229,523 231,818 234,136 MISC. AND RENTS 420,850 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 85,000 85,000 86,700 88,434 90,203 92,007 TOTAL 64,749,329 65,900,715 70,769,021 77,091,542 79,490,349 81,825,996 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 28,118,907 28,118,907 28,759,387 29,419,081 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 4,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,474,485 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,350 1,639,091 1,688,263 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 629,752 675,000 742,500 816,750 898,425 988,268 EARLY CHILDHOOD 147,050 147,050 154,403 162,123 170,229 178,740 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 TRANSPORTATION 2,983,190 3,100,000 3,348,000 3,615,840 3,905,107 4,217,516 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 874,311 875,000 918,750 964,688 1,012,922 1,063,568 M TO M TRANSFERS 1,798,665 2,490,900 3,248,910 3,760,540 4,140,580 4,491,150 ADULT EDUCATION 624,119 653,094 672,687 692,867 713,653 735,063 TOTAL 49,864,380 46,562,976 47,560,167 47,142,248 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 44,625 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANT 111,453 112,000 116,480 121,139 125,985 131,024 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 800,000 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251,024 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 3,370,820 4,474,288 4,563,774 4,655,049 4,748,150 4,843,113 CHAPTER II 224,423 215,020 219,320 223,707 228,181 232,745 TITLE VI B 558,810 569,986 581,386 593,014 604,874 616,971 OTHER 1,735,885 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 1,878,978 1,916,557 TOTAL 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 7,609,386 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL REVENUE 135,431,985 134,494,661 140,583,529 146,820,159 148,906,410 150,087,663 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 67,748,508 71,437,088 73,765,037 75,316,854 76,822,807 7,808,935 9,022,067 9,202,509 9,386,558 9,574,290 16,910,424 19,141,451 18,887,119 22,144,629 24,940,080 6,791,207 6,992,544 7,202,320 7,418,390 7,640,942 3,817,539 3,927,703 4,045,534 4,166,900 4,291,907 887,696 755,079 777,731 801,063 825,095 1,606,543 1,621,715 1,670,366 1,720,477 1,772,092 8,718,196 9,597,115 9,090,123 8,845,248 8,258,921 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 (7,700,000) (7,931,000) (8,168,930) (8,413,998) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 114,289,048 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,189 126,512,136 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANT 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 TOTAL EXPENSES 134,066,827 136,489,313 138,928,181 144,382,000 149,003,963 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,348 2,438,159 (97,553) FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 1996-97 79,373,940 9,765,775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,848 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) 130,245,103 7,609,386 15,332,277 153,186,767 (3,099,103) 4,001,302 902,199 Exhibit A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRiCT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER OPERATING DESEG FEDERAL MAGNET TOTAL SALARY FUND GRANTS SCHOOLS 1105 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA 52,349.84 44,337.94 204,356.00 301,043.78 1110 KINDERGARTEN 2,795,060.64 325,000.00 425,733.12 3,545,793.76 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 28,811,085.64 7,562,955.21 6,686,389.30 9,069,517.95 52,129,948.10 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 4,037,827.87 1,224,081.75 11,626.28 362,373.04 273,945.79 5,909,854.73 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 4,071,829.27 1,238,599.52 118,050.36 351,162.00 601,212.16 6,380,853.31 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 698,543.12 35,608.75 130,509.54 864,661.41 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 756,490.90 537,715.75 1,649,581.34 3,522,602.96 6,880.00 6,473,27u.95 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 1,156,944.86 214,094.16 67,162.00 187,848.98 1,626,050.00 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2,598,700.99 1,102,812.86 317,475.66 428,580.73 651,786.63 5,099,356.87 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2,684,664.92 2.on,880.91 1,653,162.72 444,781.18 423,530.00 7,284,019.73 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 183,975.48 734,945.29 4,265,335.80 115,554.79 5,299,811.36 2410 PRINCIPAL'$ OFFICE 3,939,101.54 1,861,405.13 107,044.21 1,195,556.85 7,103,107.73 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 16,625,075.77 710,699.21 3,000.00 1,051,829.76 18,390,604.74 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 290,883.38 2,194,315.26 510,528.09 2,995,726.73 3000'S COMMUNITY SERVICES 839,750.00 640,566.28 464,212.24 1,944,528.52 5100 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 8,718,196.00 8,718,196.00 TOTAL 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72 July 8, 1992 OFRCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee do Pulaski County Special School District P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Dear Bobby: The court needs additional information so that it may consider the Magnet Review Committee's proposed 1992-93 budget for the six original magnet schools. This information is necessary to comply with the court's March 16, 1992 order requiring that MRC requests be set in context and include a clear rationale. Furthermore, because of the acute financial difficulties currently experienced by all three school districts, it will be necessary to justify the requested budget in some detail. As you know, the court is mandated to scrutinize the parties' fiscal responsibility and accountability in relationship to the desegregation plans which, of course, include the magnet schools. To assist the court, please provide the following information: 1. Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget.  The requested 1992-93 budget of $14,164,654 is an increase of $389,238 over the 1991-92 budget of $13,775,416. The MRC proposal states that per-pupil expenditures will remain at the 1991-92 level of $3,682, yet it is not clear how the per-pupil amount can remain constant while the total budget rises, especially since the amount of the increase is not equal to the perpupil expenditure multiplied by the projected increase in student enrollment. 2. Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. 3. The committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12 meeting? July 8, 1992 Page Two 4. What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? 5. How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? 6. Section IX of the May 27, 1991 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992~93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. 7. Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. 8. What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchases services and indirect costs? 9. When may the court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the committee may suggest? My associates and I will be glad to discuss any aspect of the magnet schools' budget if you'd like for us to get together. However, a formal response to this letter will be necessary so the court has the benefit of a written record. Thank you very much for your help. Very truly yours, Ck-- Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Donna Grady Greer OCT 6 19~2 Office of oesegr.zgation t\\ionitormg 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 DISTRI CT NO:\"~1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT ~ASTEflN DISTPIW ARKANSAS OCT O 2 1992 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has received and filed of record a letter from the Magnet Review Committee concerning recent budget cuts by the Little Rock School District and the impact of those cuts on the six original magnet schools. The Committee sent a copy of the letter to the attorneys of record in this case. The parties are directed to file any response they might have to the Magnet Review Committee letter of September 28, 1992, within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this Order. ~ DATED this / day of October, 1992. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wl}H RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP 0N I[  2 -C!ce BY ____r_. _ ___ (  Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 DEC 2 8 19j2 (50 1) 758-01 56 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Offtee of Desegregation l,fonrto1 9 U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the , 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Revi ew Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet school principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted t9 reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ~Jlralk- Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) Cc  1991.:+9.:i -.ic\\ /' ,,:,._.,,,.,,. c/ci:CC:,c 1992':\"9:3 /- b  F.T:E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481 ,040 Specialists 37.4 $1 ,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) X)Q(XX* $1 ,068,359 xx:xxxxx $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 Secretaries 18.0 $301 ,141 17.0 $310,176 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.S $316,035 39.S $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $185,965 xxxxxx:l( - $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1,406,433 97.4 $1,484,391 Utilities xxxxxxxi $601,780 mxx,\u0026amp; $627,700 Travel xxxxxx:ic Maintenance Agreements xxxxx?6( xx:xxxxx $166,508 xxxxxxx. $195,093 TOT AL (30) ~#XX $768,288 xAA~#. $822,793 Principal's Office xi1006qc Regular Classroom xx:xxxl{XI $379,717 $59,072 Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (40) $399,942 5dix.~~ $438,789 Equipment $120,394 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $120,394 Dues and Fees $5,895 Other TOTAL (60) $8,358 $5,895 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,387,871 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $769,664 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education Contingency xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx $503,365 $521,176 $30,837 $35,000 $31,231 $35,000 $0 $2,000 $18,271 $25,000 $5,334 $6,880 $0 $972 $2,368 $2,558 $3,927 $8,000 $0 $86,469 * 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated.  ~2-93 Budget Proposal' ::nrn\u0026gt;tc :  . '  \". 1991-92   '   1992-93 BookecMagnet School  ..... : I] !\n:..\nf\ni::i:) ...... t F.T.E, ? Salaries yi  F,T.E, Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------t---:1~.o::-+-~$5~4~.~52~6=-+--1-.0::-+-----'-$-5~2,~5~93=---l Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45 ,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxx'.*- $172,697 ~~~: $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 STAFF rN-u-rs_e_s----------t---:-1-.0t ----:-$-2'4-,9-7-6+ ---+----,--,-- 1.0 $25,725 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) xpc~iac $28,550 xx:xxxxx $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 Utilities $81,637 xflb\u0026amp;x:xt $83,ooo Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $27,963 xltj(*-x5( $27,552 TOTAL (30) $109,600 xx:#xxx $110,552 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $54,789 Media $5,672 Other TOTAL (40) $60,461 Equipment $14 ,00Q Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $14,000 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 $2,097,313 TOTAL LINE m MS- (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL *fxf6Hof $2,152,746 x#6obat $2,19a,8o5 !ii@~~~~1~:\n~\n~iji1~ : ~~\n~:\n1ii::\n  Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx e.~J106iiP.6$tJ%!:t\nt:Jltd% 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 ?ef'Ptlpil'Cost'tIIttr: h , t%@$~}4ZZ\\\" {lt\nt$~M~S{ Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1~92-~3 Budget proB9~aC: ... . t 1991-9~  1992-9 Ci!rv~(M~~~e(crh=oo-t\"\u0026lt;: --:----:-~~-~~~\"-t+ F. ......1.. ~\\E-:- \", -St-a~la--r'i-e-s'- A-+- -i-f- -F-.'T--.E+.- \"-=S-a=l-acri.e.=s,- =----j CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.---------t---:1~.o::-+---'-$~3~1.~3~28.c..+--1~.0.::...+----=$~3~2~.2~6~8 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $137,204 xxxxxxx $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11 .0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxX $30,621 ~xxx $41 , 156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL {10-60) ~~6{ $68,924 i9\u0026lt;,gxxx $79, 1 oo $22,843 ~  $91,767 ~  $22,128 ~~ $22,128 ~lq{ $2,857 ~  63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $78,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $1,791,242 TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) $100,269 GRAND TOTAL $1,891,510 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 PerRut:\u0026gt;JJ ... cosf f,J@: mwt :trnrt~a\no35@tt tm~s:ns~r Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1@2-93 Budget ProposaF : :\n:{ \n:t: '., ,,,, 't '\n, ,, ...  1991 ... 92/\u0026lt; !Pfa~.Migm~!:#r0:0:1: \"\"\":\"\"\"\"'-:\"\"--'-:~=~r= F'-.T'-.E\".= =S=al'a\"r\"ieis- ---+-----+---+--- C ER TI FIE D Principal 1.0 F.T.E. Salaries $55,462 STAFF ~A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------+-----=-1~.o:-+---:-=-::-'--:-':-::-+----:--::-+----'-~ 1.0 $57,126 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten ' 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx: $109,125 xxxxxxx $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31 .3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 f-------------+---+------'--+- S TAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) t--------------+---+-----+- C us to di ans 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXJQl:XX $20,314 XXX)()(X.X $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 Utilities x~~xx $35,102 x\u0026gt;QClodat $38,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $13,000 TOTAL (30) $51,300 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $29,668 Media $6,400 Other TOTAL (40) $36,068 Equipment $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $12,920 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) $59,203 GRAND TOTAL $1,426,759 Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - g~~~~:.~~~~~e\n.\n~~~1~:::.:\nJ\n::1\n~:Ji'.::::\nI::\n lji:\n111~: i[j :.: ! ~~~9~ ::\naries  . ~~!~gs Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 .$144,375 3.0 $148,706 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) xx\nx)O(xx $245,140 xx:xxxx:x  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) XX:X~?CX $30,713 *~\u0026gt;tx( $37,395 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 Utilities #xxxxx' $164,666 x5.cxxx5t $168,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $60,941 TOTAL (30) $213,554 x~~xx $229,241 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $85,000 Media $11,000 Other TOTAL (40) $96,000 Equipment $28,Q00 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $28,000 Dues and Fees $1,375 Other TOTAL (60) $1,470 $1,375 TOT AL (30-60) $328,253 $354,616 TOT AL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,964,948 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $143,218 $162,358 GRAND TOTAL $3,169,124 $3,127,306 Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,877 Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 ae:r@mraost:t:::1,r::1: ::::Jr trnrrn::$$.ip~J :rn:m%J$.ii'$1\\ft Date Submitted - Principal 's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - J99:i\n~j Budget Proposal '' .,, . ..- , .. .,,. ''   1991-92 ...... 1992.:.93  =,=, E~f\u0026amp;'.!iW,=:Mi9D~JSchoot)@  ,,. },'.'',/{ d= ,.....F-T. -_-E-. -s-a~la-ri-es_ ..........- +-F-.T -.-E. --+-S-a-la-ri_e_s ---1 ~:---:-':--\"-=~.c...:.:\n..==\"-'~\"'----'=t---=t-::...:.:...:__:_..:..__-+...:...:...:..::..:...-+=-===-----1 CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 t----'--------------+----+------'---'...:....:....-+-----'-:..+----=-.::..=.c..::....:..:::...j STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $1.50,132 3.0 $154,636 t-=--:---:---,,-----------+----+------'--+----+-...:____:...:....:....~ Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxxx $271,685 XX:XXXXX . $302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 SUPPORT Secretaries t--------------+-----+------'---+-----+---- 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 S TAFF Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx' $49,690 xx:xxxxx $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512 +% , : 'ff 0tAC.ti\u0026lt;\u0026gt;t2on1 tr mt. xxxxxxx tl$s\n1s1\nau: x~~xi( @t-$s:214.\nao1 PURCHASED Utilities xxxxx~: $208,483 xxxx:ib\u0026amp;: $210,000 SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance Agreements Other $48,700 TOTAL (30) $247,575 xx'.x\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;ldf $258,700 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $100,850 (40) Media $17,000 Other TOTAL (40) $117,850 CAPITAL Equipment $37,000 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $37,000 OTHER Dues and Fees $3,496 m~ $3,500 (60) Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) $393,671 $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) $158,509 $172,976 GRAND TOTAL $3,713,516 $3,804,327 UiieltetnCosts~ r  ..... ::::\n: ..  : t  !ttiSli:Filpiii~atii\nHJ 1 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - I 1991-92 1992-93 $3,000 $112,135 $116,341 $17,696 $19,400 $22,029 $24,560 $4,071 $5,566 $1,182 $1,530 $221 $520 $577 $876 $1,781 1991-92 1992-93 837.6 870.0 $3,713,516 $3,804,327 LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF r.A-s-st~. ~P~ri-n.--------+-~1~.0-+---'-$~35~,~8~40-+--1-.0-+--=$~3~6~,9~15=--l Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21 .0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58 ,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXXXX. $132,508 xx.xxxxx $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries f-------------+---+----'--+----+---- S TAFF Nurses f---------- ---+---+-----+-----+---- C us to di ans 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxx:x $26,076 xx.xxxx:x $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities xxlbo6\u0026amp; $42,968 xxxxxxx $49,ooo SERVICES Travel xxxxx* xxxxxxx (30) Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x Other $18,000 TOTAL (30) $59,227 xx:xxxxx: $67,000 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $44 ,4 n mxxx.t $45,310 (40) Media $7,000 Other TOTAL (40) $51,454 xxx~ $52,310 CAPITAL Equipment $12,184 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $12,184 OTHER Dues and Fees (60) Other TOTAL (60) $535 $0 TOT AL (30-60) $126,200 $131,494 TOT AL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51 .4 $1,656,723 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $71,665 xxxxxx:i( $86,895 GRAND TOTAL $1,694,335 $1,743,618 t..ihti\"ifuitfcosts'#i:\\ViC  ---.,  .::::: ::\n: :',~0\"::: r \u0026gt;  ..   Arti'p6'~11'hatib(l I I ~~\n:\n~r ' 1992-93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx RE!tiBilbifcbst%i@@:@%ViMI: 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 P~rtf{iJptlC6~f% ,,,/%/ :FL, :$$'\n3~fS{ n:]}$3)Sta Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suit~ 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 JUL 1 7 iS92 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director Oifice of Desegrcga::cn 1.,vnit0ring (501 ) 758-0156 TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Bob Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Altom${t't1ir, Magnet Review Committee Response to Letter from Ann Brown July 17, 1992 Attached herewith is a copy of the MRC response to the subject letter. Per our discussion, this is for your perusal prior to our meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 1992. At this meeting, we can respond to any questions that might arise. If you need additional information prior to our meeting, you may contact me or contact the Magnet Review Committee Office at 758-0156. I look forward to our meeting on Tuesday. BA/DGC:sl Attachment RESPONSE TO ODM REGARDING INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS  BUDGET INFORMATION 1) Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget. The interdistrict magnet school per pupil expense of $3,682.00 is the amount for both the 1991-92 and the 1992-93 fiscal years. The ADM used to compute the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget is 3,741.29. The 1992-93 ADM figure of 3,847 results in a difference of 105.71. 105.71 times 3,682 is exactly $389,238. 2) Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. The MRC made every effort to comply with the Court's Order dated March 16, 1992. In this Court Order, we were told to present requests well in advance of the need for approval. A discussion of the interdistrict magnet schools' 1992-93 budget was on the April 21, 1992 MRC agenda. Minutes from that meeting indicate that the MRC directed Estelle Matthis to work with LRSD to bring a draft budget to the MRC on or before May 1, 1992. In our opinion, independent fact finding would mean that an outside individual would be employed or contracted to investigate the interdistrict magnet schools budget-making process. We have not found it necessary to go this route. Jim Ivey, Support Services Manager at LRSD, and Mark Milhollen, Controller for LRSD, presented the rationale for budget changes to the MRC. In the past, the MRC has invited the principals of each interdistrict magnet school to an MRC meeting to explain costs, especially where a significant increase was requested or a substantial decrease was recommended. No substantial changes of any type were predicted at this time. Changes in administrative costs were due to extraneous Central Office/State/ Court-ordered mandates, and not due to changes made by principals. 3) The Committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12th meeting? Members attending the May 12, 1992 MRC meeting were as follows: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD Marcia Harding, ADE Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Estelle Matthis, LRSD Members absent were: Clearence Lovell, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors A proxy vote for Clearence Lovell was cast by Marcia Harding. 4) What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? The MRC talked with the LRSD representative prior to placing a review of a draft budget on the agenda. The district was asked to be conservative since the MRC did not want to raise the per pupil expenditure. Several conversations were held with the host district for the purpose of cost containment. Cost-cutting carries a connotation of cutting services. Our objective was (and is) to retain quality, integrity and attractiveness of programs. The Court has repeatedly stated that the desegregation plan is to be implemented without regard to economic factors. The MRC has always viewed its role as one of maintaining the quality of the interdistrict magnet school program while exercising fiscal restraint. Each MRC party agreed to maintain the current level of per pupil expenditure. The MRC has always been fiscally responsible and empathetic to the financial status of all its parties. 5) How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially  that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? By design, the MRC is a body that is to \"oversee the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program.\" The funding of the interdistrict magnet schools, by design, comes from the three districts and.the State. 1/2 of the operating costs for the interdistrict magnet schools is borne by the State, with the remaining 1/2 of the costs shared by the three school districts. The MRC also recognizes that personnel costs typically account for about 80% of a school's budget. The MRC will be receptive to any fiscal options that do not hinder program effectiveness. The districts are least likely to make significant reductions in interdistrict magnet schools - key components of the desegregation plan. Even though the districts may be reducing in areas of the overall budget, the districts have to be cautious not to take cuts in any area that will adversely affect desegregation. 6) Section IX of the May 27, 1992 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992-93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. Not all components of the magnet school theme areas were initiated at the opening of the programs, but were phased in over a period of years. The curriculum guides for each school determine when and if additions or updates of programs initially implemented at that school are needed. At this time, the preliminary budget most likely has few, if any, new start-up costs. The MRC will continue to closely examine each school's needs to determine if, in fact, the variance from school to school is due to ongoing start-up costs or ongoing specialty/magnet program costs. 7) Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also, explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. One of the early Court Orders establishing the interdistrict magnet schools allows indirect costs. A district accounting practice holds each interdistrict magnet school accountable for funds expended from that department. For example, if Parkview spends funds for athletics, it is taken from the athletics line item in the interdistrict magnet school budget. At times, departments buy items in bulk for several schools and give each school its share of that item. The proportional cost of that item is taken from the budget accordingly. 8) What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchased services and indirect costs? The purchased services increase is due to a projected increase in the costs of utilities. The indirect cost item is an item allowed from the original Court Order which reimburses LRSD for the costs of running the interdistrict magnet school program. This cost is always tied to the indirect cost rate calculated annually by the State. LRSD's rate is 3.65% of the per pupil expenditure. 9) When may the Court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the Court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the Committee may suggest? The MRC is to report to the Court on a yearly basis. The budget is usually forwarded to the Court when the final revisions are made. It has been our practice to deliver the report when the budget for the reporting year can be included. The evaluation report is forwarded upon completion by our independent evaluation team. If it is the Court's desire for these three reports to be presented simultaneously, we can adjust our schedule accordingly. However, the budget cannot be finalized until the LRSD has completed the teacher contract negotiation process.  Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 July 29, 1992 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: 'JUL 3 0 1992 The Magnet Review Committee met yesterday with Dr. Mac Bernd of the Little Rock School District to hear his request for reductions in the original magnet schools' budgets. No formal action was taken, but the following consensual decisions were made: The Little Rock School District has agreed to complete the new budgetary format developed as a resul~ of inquiry into the budgetary process from the Office of besegregation Monitoring as a representative of Judge Wright. Copies of a school budget and the summary budget forms are included with this letter. The Magnet Review Committee will review a preliminary draft of the 1991-92 School Year Evaluation Report during a special meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 26, 1992, at 4:30 p.m. Reviewing the report prior to looking at the budget requests will provide insight for the budgeting process. After the evaluation report review has been conducted, the Little Rock School District will present its budgetary requests. The district will submit, in writing, the impact of the requested budget cuts on its desegregation plan and the interdistrict plan. The principals of the magnet schools will be present to answer questions about their individual budgets. The proposed date of approval for both the magnet school budgets and the evaluation report is September 15, 1992. Ms. Ann Brown -2- July 29, 1992 The Committee accepted the proposed timelines for the budgeting process with one modification. The April and May activities were combined. A copy is included. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling its oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ,,,-, ~ cI. 4t'ft.  1/1~ Altom~ hairperson Magnet Review Committee BA:sl Enclosures TIMELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY MAY JUNE The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MAC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict ~agnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Cammi ttee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF Pagel ialists Counselors Media S c. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other 0.0 $0 Nurses Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 :mtmmn~~tilit: .. : 1m1v.=  \n:'/t.f.'.I~:s:.. PURCHASED Utilities SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance A ments Other MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) TOTAL (30) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) $0 $0 $0 0.0 o.o TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL $0    : . .  . filename-booker.wql $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 er Objects irectCosts ocational x:xxxxx x:xxxxx x:xxxxx xxxxxx filename-booker. wql Date 29-Jul-92 Date Submitted. - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature-filename- booker.wql Page3 Date 29-Jul-92 . Page 4  ,~ ~-'sV::: ::::\n:\n:::::~-:t:::'::: :\n:\n::\n:.}:'.-\n-i~~\n:'.:r-:-::\n:\n:::::::::::: .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .......................... . STAFF Asst. Prin. t------------t-----+-----+---+--------11 Specialists Counselors MediaS ec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other Frin e Benefits(20) :::::.::::::::.%:. TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 STAFF Nurses 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) Travel Maintenance A ments Other TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Princi al's Office SUPPLIES Re ar Classroom $0 (40) ~M~ed:_!1~a ______ _umlffl __ _J!mL----ll CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) +tWMPMl'QlWB.\\(Qf~~l)WfaWH:tt TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-booker.wql $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Pagel NA NA NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA Media S c. NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA Music NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA s ial Education NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA Cha ter 1 NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA Other NA NA NA Frin e Benefits(20) _. ...... .::::,,:../ NA :-:-:-::::::::'.y'.\n.  ... TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Other NA NA NA Other NA NA NA,, Frin e Benefits(20) .. .... ......... .-. .-:-:---. NA --,--------:-,-- PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (50) (60) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY c:\u0026gt; \u0026gt;:::L .'.WM{t\u0026amp;,,Rl@H1%M\n: Utilities Travel Maintenance A reements Other TOTAL(30) Re lar Classroom Media Other TOTAL(40) ui ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) OTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-summary.WQl NA NA : SXlU?'/tNAb   NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA AM:3\\:.:mt,:,:NA, ... : NA $0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA . NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 NA er Objects NA NA t Costs NA NA ocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs NA NA Plant Services NA NA Reading NA NA Science NA NA English NA NA S ial Education NA NA xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 NA LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 NA Magnet Revieiv Comntittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Di,ector February 4, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansa5 72114 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: (501) 758-0156 When the Magnet Review Committee became aware of the potential of $5.5 million in cuts being made in Little Rock School District's 1993-94 budget, we were concerned as to the impact these proposed cuts might have on interdistrict magnet schools curriculum and personnel. In mid-to-late November, we polled districts across the United States as to their policy(ies) regarding magnet staff during a Reduction in Force (RIF). As a result of the responses we received, we began to act to request a hearing with regard to the development of a policy that, when enforced, would protect magnet staff positions which impact heavily on theme implementation. We have enclosed the guidelines that we plan to follow for your perusal and will keep you apprised of our work. Sincerely, ~~' Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosure , I. THU lE,:10 Rationale The Magnet Review Committee is taking the following steps to support its rationale for the proposal of a staffing policy that protects certain interdistrict magnet positions from the Little Rock School District's Reduction in Force (RIF) policy: A. Solicit letters from those persons already contacted regarding their RIF policy and how it impacts magnet schools staff. B. Review the literature and research on magnet themes and how critical the staffing is to the implementation of themes. c. Review/share/recount related experiences encountered when visiting other school districts as to their comments on how critical staffing is in establishing curriculum, as well as attracting and maintaining students. D. Include local experiences in cause/effect relationships that would encompass course development and staff development. E. Plan for input from other groups. II. Procedures A. Donna Creer will again contact the school districts mentioned in I.A. She will provide background information to the districts as to why we are asking for this information. Questions to be answered are: 1) Do they have a policy? If so, please include a copy. 2) Has the policy/lack of policy in this particular area encountered any difficulties? If so, what are they? 3) Please provide the pros and cons of the current practice. THU 16 :~11 B. The regular meeting of the MRC scheduled for February 16, 1993, will be devoted to developing a document for the Court regarding Little Rock School District's RIF policy. Invitees to this meeting are as follows: 3 Leadership members of the LRCTA 7 Magnet Review Committee representatives 4 LRSD Central Office members (minimum number - possibly more will be in attendance) 6 Magnet school principals ? Special invitees - ODM, other C. A survey will be provided to parents of magnet school children. Parents will be asked to give their perception of which people should be retained in their positions if the district is forced to use its RIF policy. The positions would be those that are deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of the magnet therne(s). The results of the survey will help to determine which positions the MRC may request to be protected from the Little Rock School District RIF policy. P.03 / THU 15:59 P  0 1 .371- 0/00 DATE: TO: FIRH: RE: FROM: PAGES: FAX COVER SHEET FAX MACHINE# (501) 771-2420 d1F~,__~-~ Lv. ~ ~--- .!/ (INCLUDING 'l'HXS COVER SR!::ET) PL:SASE CALL BACK IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN TRA'.'lS:-~rss:::m,s OR IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED. NOTES: FEB 1 8 \\993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Ofnigng'ition Mon,iori\nig 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 W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER F~LED . ' .C. DISTRICT COURT .::.:Ei\u0026lt;:, DISTRICT ARKANSAS ~B 1 2 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for approval of the 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal. The proposed budget was forwarded to the Court on December 28, 1992. (See attached letter and document.) The Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring have carefully reviewed the budget and the Court finds that it should be approved as submitted. -r.l, SO ORDERED this /J-__ day of February, 1993. Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. s. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review (501) 758-0156 Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Review Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet schooi principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted to reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Connnittee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, \u0026amp;~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District lifillllrdlll~~jjJJJliiiii~j:Jlii:ljiJ:l!llil ~~~:-9 Salaries :~~:fl !anes '  CERTIFIED Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 STAFF Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481,040 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $1,068,359 ~  $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 SUPPORT Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 17.0 $310,176 STAFF Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $185,965 ~  $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1 .406,433 97.4 $1.484,391 nm@t}tlJY:OTAb.\\((1042.0, ....................... ,\n............. xx:xxxxi ($1.2\n00'4J~ t ~  #$Ji2~1'21{261@ PURCHASED Utilities ~  $601,780 ~  $627,700 SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL LINE IT Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal' s Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) MS-(SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL XXXlOOCX ~ ~ \n:::~::::-:~-::--\n-:-:-:-: )0.l:lQ()OIX XXXXXXJC $166,508 ~ . $195,093 ~ $768,288 ~ . $822,793 XXX\u0026gt;OOOC imxx'x:, XXXJOOO(. $343.433 ~  $379,717 xxxxxx:x $56,509 mxxxx' $59,072 \u0026gt;000000( xmcxxx xx:xxxxx. $399,942 xxxxxxx $438,789 \u0026gt;000000(' $111,824 ~ - $120,394 xxxxxxx ~  XXXX\u0026gt;OOC xxxxxxx. XX:XXXX:X $111 ,824 xx:xxxxx $120,394 xxxxxx:x $8,358 XXX)OO(X. $5,895 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $8,358 XXlOOOO( $5,895 xxxxxxx $1,288,412 xxxxxxx $1 ,387,871 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 xxxxxxx  $595,333 xxxxxx:x $769,664 xxxxxxx $13,887,841 xxxxxx:x $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $503,365 $521,176 Vocational $30,837 $35,000 Athletics $31,231 $35,000 Gifted Programs $0 $2,000 Plant Services $18,271 $25,000 Reading $5,334 $6,880 Science $0 $972 English $2,368 $2,558 Special Education $3,927 $8,000 Contingency $0 $86,469 * xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $52,593 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Pert ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ r $172,697 ~ : $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 1------------+----+--------1-----t--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 1.0 1------------+----+----..\n...._---1------ $24,976 $25,725 C us to di ans 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) ~~r $28,550 ~  $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 ItMIJ@lt@tarAU:J1042.0'1:  , ,   ~  i?f$1t890!43Qi! ~  #$.tU~1aJPt PURCHASED Utilities ~  $81,637 ~ : $83,000 SERVICES Travel ~  ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ i. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) Other \u0026gt;a:XlOCXX. $27,963 xuioax. TOTAL(30) ~ . $109,600 ~  Principal's Office \u0026gt;OOOCXXX xxii\u0026amp;xx: Regular Classroom XXJOCXXX $53,613 ~  Media \u0026gt;dxxxxx $4,698 xxiiixx Other xmcxxx ,oo\u0026amp;xxx TOTAL (40) xx:xxxxx: $58,311 XJXli()QIX Equipment m,oocx\n$6,3TT ~  Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $6,3TT xxxxxxx. OTHER Dues and Fees XXXX:XXX. XXJOOCXX (60) Other xxxxxxx )000000(. TOT AL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 XX:lOOOOf TOTAL {30-60) \"  xxxxxx:x . $174,288 xxxxxxx: TOTAL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 TOTAL LINE IT MS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x: $27,552 $110,552 $54,789 $5,672 $60,461 $14,000 $14,000 $0 .. $185,0ts.: $2,097,313 $101,493 $2,198,805 1992-93 Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1 ,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,268 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) XXlCXlOQf $137,204 ~  $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 1--------------t---1-------1------1-- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 1------------+----+-----'---l------+-- C us to di ans 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) x\u0026gt;\u0026amp;ib( $30,621 ~\u0026gt;ob $41,156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Mi@W:J{)fJ'OT.At.rtto\"c\"20}\\.. ., ti l()OOOO(X @i$1\\$$9\n69:3t jppooo\u0026amp; .. ::t$.l\n$9\nt\nssa\nPURCHASED Utilities ~ : $68,924 ~\n$79,100 SERVICES Travel ~ : ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements lOOl'XX)(X ~\nMATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other lOCXXXXX $22,843 ~ - TOTAL (30) :iobooO\u0026lt;X: $91,767 X\u0026gt;OOOOOl. Principal'sOffice ~  X)(XXX)O( Regular Classroom xxxx:100, $55,638 xxxx:xxx Media xxxx:xxx $11,410 XX)OO()(X Other lOOOOCXX lOOCXXl(X TOTAL (40) XXXXJOOr $67,048 xxxxxxx Equipment $22,128 ~ Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOCX p0000(X Other XXXXJO(X. xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $22, 128 xxxxxxx Dues and Fees lOOOOOO{ $2,857 lOOOOOO( Other XXXXlOOr xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxx:xxx: $2,857 lOOOOCXX XXXXJCXX .:. ..  $1sa,aoo xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 TOTAL LINE ITI MS - (SECOND PAGE) lCXXXXXX $84,978 lOOOOCXX GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,822,471 XXXXXXX $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $76,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $199,410 $1,791,242 $100,269 $1,891,510 ~~~~liilili\\~l~~~:~::~:::\n::~~,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt;= ,\n~92-93 ::::: Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.r e.upij c.\u0026amp;stI@t@rnrnnwcn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 m.m:e.uoo,tst:rn,:wrmmmmm rnmmmis~o.aeJ tmwnis\noser Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $57,126 STAFF Asst.Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten \\ 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $109,125 ~ r $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31.3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 STAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $20,314 ~ : $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 MMMWt@[QT.Allti0420lHMmrnwm ~  I@$1t20#\n$.1$] ~ : l@$1~2$.'tl26'ai PURCHASED Utilities ~ $35,102 ~ $38,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements xiioocii\n. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~  $11,464 ~ . $13,000 TOTAL(30) ~  $46,566 ~  $51,300 Principal's Office ~ . ~  Regular Classroom xxixm: $25,426 ~  $29,668 Media ~  $6,241 )000000( $6,400 Other x:xxxxxx xiii\u0026amp;xx: TOTAL (40) xxixxxx $31,667 ~  $36,068 Equipment ~  $3,968 )000000( $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx\n$3,968 ~ . $12,920 Dues and Fees Other xxxxxxx TOT AL (60) XlOOOCXX $0 XXlOCXXX $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS -(SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $48,935 xxxxxxx. $59,203 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 XXlOO\u0026lt;XX $1,426,759 l1~~~~,[j1i!~lll[lllt\ntt\n~':!\n\\(@% '~~\n~~\n:' .c.= Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ' xxxxxx Rif POtm\nsdstwmmrmwnrn@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 ~ fofffimftl.bitdjfak:ihi+1 ffhiii$3i933.i 6@faiM1H-2.i Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - ~lill!r\u0026amp;:l!:,::r::\n~::~\n.:::::~:::::::i:1~!:::\n.:::!\n::\n:::::::\n:i:::::::i::::::~:::~~: ~~~~~ Salarie:  ~~~:-il\n:\n:\n:~=!MW@f CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $148,706 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) ~OOb.j\\t $245,140 ~  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 1-----------+---+-----'----+--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 -----------+---+---------- Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxiaxx $30,713 ~  $37,395 TOTALSUPPORTSALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 nm:rn@iMfa1t.OTA.ii tt@1m:m::\ntm\nrnw ~ \n@:$za.az~2\ni ~ t 1m:12.~ec1:t11.a.!1 PURCHASED Utilities ~ i $164,666 ~  $168,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements ~  ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~ : $48,887 ~  TOTAL(30) ~\n$213,554 ~ : Principal's Office Regular Classroom $76,512 xixxxx'x. Media $10,301 mxxxx Other TOTAL (40) $86,813 xxxxxxx Equipment $26,417 xxxxxxx Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx Other )OO(XX)(X mxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xx:xxxxx Dues and Fees $1,470 xxixxxx Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) $1,470 mxxxx TOTAL (30-60) $328,253 xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx. $143,218 mxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx. $3,169,124 xxxxxxx $60,941 $229,241 $85,000 $11,000 $96,000 $28,000 $28,000 $1,375 $1,375 $354,616 $2,964,948 $162,358 $3,127,306 - ::!:~~t~:\n~i\\~llil~1i:iii\n:\n~\n:::~~::~:  ~99\n~9\n Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,8n Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.teu.riBtb.sttm1tninw1rnrn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 a::eu.mt@b.it:tlMi@%NtdJ{ liMi@ff$1lWi mntrn@$$\n$1Ji1 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - _ ll!i-{t~ll~ll\nli:\n:\n!::li\n!i\n1!~::\nil~!~1:!:!l!ii!l~[\n:i!i!\n!!~:~!!:!!Jill~~ ~~~  Jtift#t~- .. ,.,.,, ... ., ..., .. , .. , .,,. .. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $154,636 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,5TT 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) ul\u0026amp;xr $271,685 .fix\n$302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $TT,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ , $49,690 ~  $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512  1\nmnw:rnr\nr.o.1tAt41p\n:201wrnrrn1mw ~ - m1a~~1e1::aasrn ~ : wm:s.s~214~an1@ Utilities ~ : $208,483 ~ : $210,000 Travel ~  ~  Maintenance Agreements ~ t ~\nOther ~ : $39,092 ~  $48,700 TOTAL(30) ~ $247,575 ~ ' $258,700 Principal's Office xixxixx: ~  Regular Classroom mxxxx $87,767 ~  $100,850 Media ~ $16,883 xxii6a:x $17,000 Other ~  mooooc: TOTAL (40) xuxxxx' $104,650 XXlOOdx\n$117,850 Equipment A ' $37,950 \u0026gt;OOQOOIX' $37,000 Building Repair, etc. XlOOOiCXi ~  Other XXX\u0026gt;CXXX )OOO()i(XX TOTAL (50) $37,950 lOOClOOOC $37,000 Dues and Fees XXXJCXXX $3,496 XXJQCXXX'\n$3,500 Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 XX\u0026gt;OOOOC $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxx:ir $393,671 lOOOCXXX $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx: $158,509 XX:XXXX:JC\" $172,976 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx:x $3,713,516 xx:xxxx:x $3,804,327 -~\u0026amp;~2rtr 1991-92 1992-93 Stipends $3,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $116,341 Vocational $17,696 $19,400 Athletics $22,029 $24,560 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $5,566 Reading $1,182 $1,530 Science $221 English $520 $577 Special Education $876 $1,781 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx ffli\\\\Pii\u0026amp;tea1ttrnmirn:@tt@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 870.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,804,327 R iPOb.itCostMNfaiJf@@m+@ MWE%$4i4i.iU tMM@Ulat.at Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - lBi+ ,,:::::::::::::::@::::::::::::: Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1. 0 $35,840 1.0 $36,915 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $132,508 ~ : $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries ------------t-----1'------t- ST AF F Nurses ------------t----\"1'------1- Custodians 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) mxxxx= $26,076 xxixxxxf $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities ~ : $42,968 ~ - $49,000 SERVICES Travel XXXXXXX' iil\u0026amp;xixI (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ : Other ~X\u0026gt;bix $16,259 xxxxxxx= MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOT AL (10-60) TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL ~ xxxxxxx XXlQOOOO XX:lOOOOC\" $59,227 )OOQC)OO(. umxx\n$44,477 ~ : $6,976 xxxxxxx: $51 ,454 ~ $14,984 xxxxxxx.. $14,984 XXXXXXX' $535 xxxxxx:ic: xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x: $535 xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x $126,200 xxxxxxx 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 XX:XXXXX $71 t 665 XXXlOOO( XXXXXXX $1,694,335 XXXXXXlC $18,000 $67,000 $45,310 $7,000 $52,310 $12,184 $12,184 $0 $131,494 $1,656,723 $86,895 $1,743,618 =~~~~\n,\n~1:i:t:i::\n::::i:i\ni::\n~\n=~~:::::::::\n: :~9\n~93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Pif!tffiffiB)ist:@:fl@JIJllM 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 Peifffibiftfost#Wi@ltt :::\n:::~ ltMJ:\n:::U\n313i f:tJI$ala1ai Date Submitted - Prlncipal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director August 19, 1993 Ms. Estelle Matthis Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Matthis: RECEIVED AUG 2 3 W93 Q!tice al oesegreg ation Monitoring (501) 758-0156 In an effort to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the Stipulation magnets, the Magnet Review Committee has within its role and responsibility the approval of funds budgeted for Stipulation magnet programs for each fiscal year. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, at the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, worked with the Little Rock School District to establish a timeline for the Magnet Review Committee to review, approve and submit a budget for the interdistrict magnet schools to the Court for final approval. (See enclosure.) While we realize that the unusual events of the year have wreaked havoc with the timelines we mutually agreed upon, we are still in need of information as to: 1) when we can expect information on the previous fiscal year's end-of-year budget information\n2) when the preliminary Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget will be submitted to the Magnet Review Committee\n3) when the principals will be available for review and justification of the budget for their individual building. For your convenience, we have also submitted a sample copy of the form to be used for the submission of budget information. Ms. Estelle Matthis -2- August 19, 1993 Immediate attention to this issue is of vital importance and will be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, !l!t~rn, Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent - LRSD / Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring MRC Members TI MELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MRC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school, year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict magnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Committee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 Page 1 STAFF Asst. Prin. Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe llenefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries t-:-:------------+----+-----+--~1------11 STAFF Nurses r:C::::-u-s-:-to-d=-=-ia_n_s--------+----+-----+--~-----II Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 PURCHASED ~~\n~!\ntcl.P.!.'l~Ji1($l~QXThlC3t:'\nl~f }2:KN~HU ~Xffl: SERVICES 1-Tra--ve-I----------\ni\n~,,\n~.,,\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n:\n. t ------f.im\"\"C:\"\"J~\"\"\"'\"\"?'''.ffi,\n-------ll (30) Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom (40) Media CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40)  uipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) ~ ~ i~ ~\n~ ~ :~ ~ ~ $0 $0 $0 ~:li'i.i ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 =?f+1if/WtifflW$1l~i(~,m~o}.JiWW:PJW xffim .~M%%#W$m\n:,::: ::: wrnrn'\n'':\n''F'.'.l.*-f TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) d.,,~~ .... ~,u. , $0 $0 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ $0 ' $0 filename-booker. wq 1 Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx:xxx filename-booker.wql Date 29-Jul-?2 ~ifntillt@1:k\u0026amp;1MttWi\u0026gt;0Jl 1991-92 Qtr. ADM or Proi. tal Costs $0 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-booker.wql Page3 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 1111111::4~~~:m\n,,\n. Page 4 '\" iiiti  .. ,iW'.iV ' CERTIFIED Principal STAFF \"A~s:s~t.~P~r~in~.--------f---t-----l---t----____jl Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe Ilenefits(20)  :..,,,\\ ,,, TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries STAFF r-N7u_r_s-es----------t----t-----+---+-----~I PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTHER (60) Custodians Paraprofessionals-Cbptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other Frin2e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Re2ular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (SO) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) ~ ~ ~ -~ -~ ~ -~ $0 0.0 ~ {ffi $0 ,. $0 $0 ~l~Jf4@~tf\\TmWm(3~Wi9)\\1fui%J~!t :~ :~'l~~\\\\\\Wri$0.t TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ $0 11 GRAND TOTAL '.fixxm $0  filename-booker. wq 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 . Puge 1 liiM~~t1fi~~c: ey  : :,,,,,,,::::::..  .,.m,,~~,,::,~J\n.fi~=~ii~iii~l~\n.~\n: ~~::::~:,\n:.~:.: ~~~ m ~  m m STAFF Asst Prin. NA NA NA NA Specialists NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA NA Media Spec. NA NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA NA Music NA NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA NA Special Education NA NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA NA Chapter 1 NA NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) .~ NA NA TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Other NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) !~ NA ,}. . _.. .... ~=:::::. NA TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY NA NA NA NA PURCHASED Utilities ~ NA NA SERVICES Travel .~ NA ' ww'' NA (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ NA  .. w\"\"\" NA Other NA :  :.w:,::,....-. NA TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom NA NA NA NA NA NA NA (40) Media NA CAPITAL OUTIAY (50) OTHER (60) Other TOTAL(40) Eouipment Building Repair, etc. Other ~ ~ NA NA\u0026amp;\\~ NA NA : ... c::.:::: ::: NA NA NA NA i~ NA~ NA TOTAL (50) m NA m\u0026amp;~~ NA Dues and Fees :~ NA NA Other ~ NA ~:.:\n,:' ' ... \" NA rnmki:n=:wdt~~=~~(}1f%ikt,\n:y ---~::. :::::::~::::::::::~: .\n:\n.\n:\n:\n:\n~\n:\n2~~I TOTAL (10-60) NA NA NA NA TOTALLINEITEMS-(SECONDPAGE) ~ $0\n...... :  NA 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ NA  ..    NA !Jlename-summary. WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 1991-92 1992-93 ... NA NA Other Objects Indirect Costs NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs Plant Services NA NA NA NA Readin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA x:xxxxx x:xxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro.i. Total Costs NA NA Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director September 22, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-01 5G RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: SEP 2 4 1993 At its September 14, 1993 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1993-94 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,554,670, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,823.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,807 students. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: On November 17, 1992, the Little Rock School District, via its representative Estelle Matthis, reported to the Magnet Review Committee that, in accordance with the budgeting process outlined by Little Rock School District Superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd, the Little Rock School District 1993-94 budget meeting with the Board would not be until the end of April, 1993. (The actual budgeting process was not complete until July, 1993.) The Little Rock School District, represented by Dr. Henry Williams, new Superintendent\nEstelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent\nLeon Adams, Alternate Magnet Review Committee Representative\nand Mark Milhollan, Controller, presented Draft 1 of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget to the Magnet Review Committee on September 9, 1993. Each of the six interdistrict magnet school principals made a presentation on their school's budget. The Magnet Review Committee members presented budget information to their parties. The Magnet Review Committee met on September 14, 1993, and approved the budget. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 22, 1993 Page 2 The approved budget represents an increase of 3.82%, or $141.00 per student. The increase is largely due to Little Rock School District's negotiated salary agreements and indirect cost factors. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, !J4aJ:t= Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment: 1993-94 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 3) cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET (DRAFT 3) ORIGINAL SIX MAGNET SCHOOLS RECE~VEO SEP 2 4 1993 Ot:ica Qf Desegraqaticn ~,1onitorin3 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 14, 1993 Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle~ THROUGH: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Proposed 1993-94 Budget (Draft 3) Attached for your files is Draft 3 of the proposed 1993-94 magnet budgets which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee on September 14, 1993. I appreciate the cooperation of the Magnet Review Committee and look forward to working with them in the future. cc: Jerry Malone 1 g~3.,..94 Budget Proposal (CJ raft 3) .. --:... .,--:-:-:-\n.:.:..\n::\n:-:\n.,., ' 1991-92 1992-93 .., ../ 1993-94 l,,::C, ...... / . SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS .? \u0026gt;. F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.5 $431,093 05 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $222,455 7.0 $233,751 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 10 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $245,166 9.7 $276,790 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.0 $174,623 12 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.2 $5,689,340 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $9,529,304 288.6 $9,276,435 291.2 $9,955,822 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 18.0 $355,081 18.0 $353,310 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 17 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $335,694 29.0 $372,625 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 38.0 $311,683 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xxxx::x $1,254,324 xx::xxxx::x $1,366,607 xx::xxxx::x $1,342,873 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 96.4 $2,692,554 ) . . TOTAL (10\n:.:20)\u0026lt; f/}\n{t) xx::xxxx::x $12,004\n096 xx::xxxx::x  $11\\883,532 xx::xx:xx::x $12,648\n376 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xxxx::x $601,780 xx::xxxx::x $507,373 xx::xxxx::x $598,926 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x $29,326 xx::xxxx::x. $31,215 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x 25 Other xx::xxxx::x $166,508 xx::xx:xx::x $97,426 xx::x xxx::x $99,428 TOTAL (30) xx::xx:xx::x $768,288 xx::xxxx::x $634,125 xx::xxxx::x $729,569 MATERIALS, 26 Principal' s Office xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx::xxxx::x $343,433 xx::xxxx::x. $309,128 xx::xxxx::x. $315 .284 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxx::x $56,509 xx::xxxx::x $53,842 xx::xxxx::x $54,884 29 Other xx::xxxx::x. xx::xxxx::x $11,647 xx::xxxx::x $11,856 TOTAL (40) xx::xxxx::x $399,942 xx::xxxx::x: $374,617 xx::xxxx::x $382,024 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx::xxxx::x $104,215 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x TOTAL (50) xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx:xxxx::x $104,215 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx:xxxx::x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx::xxxx::x $12,665 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxx::x xx:xxxx::x xx:xxxx:x TOTAL (60) xx::xxxx:x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx:xxxx:x $12,665 TOTAL (30-60) xx::xxxx::x $1,288,412 xx::xx:xx::x $1,127,441 xx::xxxx:x $1,228 473 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 387.0 $13,010,969 387.6 $13,876,849 TOTAL LINE ITE MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $595,333 xx:xxxx:x $537,465 xx::xxxx::x $677,821 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $13,887,841 xx::xxxx::x $13,548,434 xx::xx:xx::x $14 ,554,670 Line item Costs - . Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total'Line Items    $595,333 1 $537,465, . I// $677 ,821.:\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 Per Pupil Cost $3\n823\\ 1 ~~~~ Budget Prop?sal (Draft 3) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 36oker Magnet School   y F.T.E Salaries ... F.T.E:. Salaries F.T.E:? Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 03 Specialists 6.0 $350.341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 10 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 17 Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $42,176 5.0 $47,081 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 ,$64,657 8.0 $75,718 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xx:x $201,247 xx:xx:xxx $225,867 xxxx:xX::i. $215,438 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $373,998 16.0 $388,766 16.0 $396,712 / \\t ... TOTAL(10-20)i \u0026amp;+ xx:xx:xx:x I $1\n890 ,.430 xx:xx:xx:x.:  $1\n942,422 xx:xx:xx:x $2,006,780 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xx:xx:x $81,637 xx:xx:xx:x $71,492 xx:xx:xx:x $87,854 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xx:xx:x. 25 Other xx:xx:xx:x $27,963 xx:xx:xx:x $9,549 xx:xxxx:x $9,800 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $109,600 xx:xxxx:x $81,041 xx:xxxxx $97,654 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xx:xxx $53,613 xx:xxxxx $37,774 xxxxxx:x  $38,500 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $4,698 xx:xxxxx $4,743 xxxxxxx $4 ,800 29 Other xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x $1,255 xx:xxxx:x $1,255 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $58,311 xx:xxxx:x $43,772 xx:xxxx:x $44,555 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xxxx:x $10,090 xx:xxxx:x $6,100 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxx:x XX:XXXX:X- xx:xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx xx:xx:xx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xx:xxx $10,090 xx:xx:xx:x $6,100  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxx:xx:x xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx (60) 34 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxx:x $0 xx:xxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (30-60) .,::-:. xxxxxx:x  $174,288 xxxxxx:x $134,903 xxxxxx:x $148,309 TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,717 63.9 $2,077,325 64.5 $2,155,089 TOTAL LINE ITE MS- (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxx:x $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,618 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x $2,152,771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 ' 1993-94 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx   Total. Line ltems.tft ) )Cf $88,028:- $75,446 \u0026lt;)$99,618. Per Pupi'I Cost) .\n\\\n, 1991-92 1992-93: . 1993-'-94 . (f 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 199~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3)    \u0026gt; : \u0026gt; 1991-921 Actual 1992-93 t Actual C.if.Y~fMagn~tSchool \u0026lt; ) :\n: t F.T\nE. / lt Salaries F.T.E3 .  Salaries  CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 05 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,532 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 1 0 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $30,734 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,183,059 42.6 $1,164,768 1 5 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 F1,921 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xxx $167,825 xx:xxxx:x $190,533 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 1993-94 F.T.E. 1.0 1.0 8.0 2.1 2.0 23.6 2.0 1.0 4.0 44.7 3.0 1.0 3.5 11.0 xxxx:xxx 18.5 Budgeted ..:. Salaries : $59,423 $42,422 $236,265 $60,101 $46,074 $690,189 $32,460 $34,246 $17,150 $117,132 $1,335,462 $67,824 $31,250 $42,645 $76,016 $192,561 $410,297 TOTAL(10-20} xx:xxxx:x . $1,553\n693 xxxxxxx : $1\n557\n097 xxxx:xxx I $1,745.758 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxx:xxx $68,924 xxxxxxx $53,586 xxxxxxx $69,730 ~+-------------!----i~----'----+----+------,----,---.,----,,-+---+------,-----,-'------j SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx $12,253 xx:xxxxx $12,500 ~+-------------1----1~----+----+------+----+----'------j (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx. xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xx:xx:xxx $22,843 xxxxxx:x $9,911 xxxxxx:x $10,100 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $91,767 xxxx:xxx $75,750 xxxx:xxx $92,330 MATERIALS, 1-2--6+-P_r_in--c-'-ip_a_ls' _O_ff_ic_e ___~ x_ xx_xx_xx-1------+x_xx_xx_xx--+-----+-x_x:x_xx_x:x-+--------j SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxx:xxx $55,638 xxxxxxx $52,759 xxxx:xxx (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $11,41 O xxxxxxx $13,271 xxxxxxx 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x $2,593 xxxxxx:x CAPITAL I OUTLAY (50) I OTHER I (60) TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60} TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $67,048 xxxxxx:x $68,623 xx:xxxxx . xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xx:xxxx:x xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $183,800 xxxxxxx $176,174 xxxxxxx 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $1,733,271 63.2 xxxxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx $86,058 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $1,822,471 xxxxxxx $1,819,329 xxxxxxx $53,814 $13,536 $2,645 $69,995 $28,450 $28,450 $3,985 $3,985 $194,760 $1,940,518 $107,945 $2,048,463 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Llne Items.:, ..  { $84,978 I: ..... $86\nosa .  $107\n945 Per Pupil Cost -:,:  1991~92 ./ 1992-93? 1993-94 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.00 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 PerPupil. Cost ..... .-.. .-. : ..., .. .... , .. $3,036? /\\ .:: $3,092: $3,386 1~~~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3) , .. 1991-92 Actual 1992-92 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted G.ibbs Magnet school       F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160 ,752 5.8 $158,107 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985 ,841 29.3 $1,007,242 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 17 Custodians 3.0 $41 ,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39 ,012 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x,: $129,439 XX:XXXX:X' $141 ,032 xx:xxxx:x $136,618 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11 .8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 TOTAL (10-20}:\\ : t xx:xxxx:x:: \u0026lt; $h204i513 , XXXXXXJCc. 1-\u0026lt; $1\\ 226\n435 xxxxxx:x \\ $1,254,041 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxx:x: $35,102 xxxxxx:x $26,879 xx:xxxx:x $38,531 SERVICES 23 Travel XX'X)O(X:X xxxx:xx:x, $2,066 XXJOO(X:X- $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:xce XX:XXXX:X' xxxx:xxx.. 25 Other xri:xxx:x: $11,464 xx:xxxx:x $7,309 xx:xxxx'x $7,455 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x,. $46,566 XX:XXXX:X, $36,254 xx:xxxx:x $49 ,393 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx:: $25,426 xxxxxx:x: $23,541 xx:xxxx:x $24,012 (40) 28 Media xxxxxx:x. $6,241 xx:xxxx:x $6,489 xx:xxxx:x $6,620 29 Other xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $1,016 xx:xxxx:x $1 ,036 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $31 ,667 xxxxxx:x $31 ,046 xx:xxxx:x $31 ,668 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $3,968 xx:xxxx:x $2,594 xxxxxx:x $2,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx  $3,968 xx:xxxxx $2,594 xxxxxxx $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $1,132 xxxxxxx $1,155 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 xxxxxxx $1 ,132 xxxxxxx $1 ,155 TOT AL (30-60} XX:X)O(X:X $82,202 xx:xx.xxx $71 ,025 xxxxxxx . $84,862 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1 ,297,460 40.1 $1 ,338,903 TOTAL LINE m MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxx.xxx $41,553 xxxxxxx $51,892 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 xx:xxxxx $1,339 ,013 xxxxxxx $1,390,795 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx :\\::::,. . TotaLLine Items : ..... \u0026lt;} $48,935  ft:. $41,553 .-.-\n-\n,:_ $51,892 Per Pupil Cost '\u0026gt; . ,:: ::,\u0026gt; 1991,-92\\ / 1992-93}/\n\\ ... 199S-::94 /.' 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 PerPupil Gosr,,:.-\\,:,,,:\n:::t/ :\\ft } $3,933. tt : $4,070  )) $4\n214? ~~\n~1~~~~:~ :~~~~~:: . \u0026lt;~(\nft 3 ) ... ::::: ii :: 1991,-92 Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted   F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 10 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 _$32,748 9.0 $54,985 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xx:xx::x $158,584 xx::xx:xx::x $171,101 xx::xx:xx::x $166,399 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 TOTAL (10-20)/   XX::XX:XX::X $1,496,470 xx::xx:xx::x  $1,465,402 xx::xx:xx::x $1,580,155 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xx:xx::x. $42,968 xx::xx:xx:x $38,623 xx:xx:xx::x $48,682 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xx:xx:x  xx::xx:xx::x $3,793 xx::xx:xx::x $3,870 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xx:xx:x xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x 25 Other xx:xxxx:x $16,259 xx:xx:xx::x $16,400 xx::xx:xx::x $16,728 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $59,227 xx:xxxx:x $58,816 xx::xx:xx:x $69,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx::xx:xx:x xx::xxxxx xx::xx:xx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx.: $44,477 xxxxxxx: $38,631 xxxxxxx $39,405 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxxx $6,976 xx:xxxx:x $6,234 xxxxxx:x $6,360 ' 29 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x. $1,475 xxxx:xx:x $1,505 ! TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $51,454 xx:xxxx:x $46,341 xx:xxxxx $47,270 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xxxxxx:x $25,535 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xx:xxxxx xx::xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xx:xxx xx::xxxx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxxx $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xx::xxxx::x $25,535 I  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx::xxxxx $535 xx:xx:xx::x $190 xx:xxxx:x S195 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xxxx::x xx:xx:xxx TOTAL (60) xx::xxxxx $535 xx::xx:xx:x $190 xx::xxxx::x $195 .. ,, TOTAL (30-60) xx::xx:xx::x $126,200 xx::xx:xx::x $130,381 xx::xx:xx::x $142,280 TOT AL (1 0-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 I TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx::xxxx:x $71,665 xxxx:xxx $60,881 xx:xxxx:x $78,563 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $1,694,335 xxxx:xx::x $1,656,664 xx::xx:xxx $1,800,998 Line Item Costs - ... Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 199\n3-94 Stipends $1,537 $1,614 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx / Total Line ltems/\u0026gt;c \u0026lt; {$71,665\\ t ~60,aa1  ................. .$78\n563 Per Pupil Cost\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 11 ~g3'\"\"91: Budget Proposal (Draft 3) )!j:Jill 1 tI\u0026lt; . . 1991-92 1. Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 . Budgeted iA,NN Magnet School  F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $65,214 3.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 , $46,693 2.4 $37,142 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x: $275,853 xx:xxxx:x $292,062 xx:xxxx:x: $296,293 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 14.5 $525,462 13.4 $526,829 .:\u0026gt; .. -:- TOTAL(l0-20)) :\n:- xx:xxxx:x: i $2,697,653 xx:xxxx:x ' $2,584\n578 xx:xxxx:x $2,805,067 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xxxx:x: $164,666 xx:xxxx:x: $137,280 xx:xxxx:x S168,667 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $11,214 xx:xxxx:x $11,438 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 xxxxxxx $35,464 xx:xxxxx. $36,175 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxxx .. $213,554 xx:xxxx:x $183,959 xxxxxxx $216,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxxx xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xxxxx $76,512 xx:xxxx:x $63,984 xxxxxx:x $65,265 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxxx. $10,301 xx:xxxx:x $9,352 xxxxxx:x: $9,540 29 Other xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx $2,172 xxxxxxx $2,215 TOTAL (40) xxxxxx:x $86,813 xx:xxxxx $75,508 xxxxxx:x $77,020 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx. $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 TOTAL (30-60) . xx:xxxxx $328,253 xxxxxxx $278,422 xxxxxxx $312,635 TOT AL (1 0-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,863,000 78.7 $3,117,702 TOTAL LINE IT$MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $143,218 xxxxxxx $137,573 xxxxxxx $172,083 GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $3,169,124 xx:xxxx:x $3,000,573 xxxxxx:x $3,289,785 Une Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 \" 1993-94 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 Reading $1 ,209 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items,:\\ . .: \\1 $143,218? t $137,573 \\/ $172\n083.- . 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 1 ~394\n!udget.proposal. (Draft 3) ) .  ::..-, ::::::\n::::::'.::::::\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":581,"next_page":582,"prev_page":580,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":6960,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}