{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"umc_awr_50298","title":"Banquet, Virginia State National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Williamsburg, VA)","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, James City County, Williamsburg, 37.27344, -76.74148"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997-10-24"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"Public Statements. 1961-2000\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Labor unions"],"dcterms_title":["Banquet, Virginia State National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Williamsburg, VA)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/50298"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"umc_awr_50540","title":"Board of Directors: Meeting, October 1997","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997-10"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1956-1999\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights","Labor movement"],"dcterms_title":["Board of Directors: Meeting, October 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/50540"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1670","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD approval of revised desegregation and education plan and PCSSD petition for release from federal court supervision"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1670"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["29 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion for approval of revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) petition for release from federal court supervision; Court of Appeals, ruling; Court of Appeals, reply brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al.; District Court, Knight intervenors' response to motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) reply to the Joshua intervenors' request for a hearing to develop procedures for the consideration of the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) for the approval of a revised plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for an extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) petition for release from federal court supervision; District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, Joshua intervenors' first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for approval of the revised desegregation and education plan  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. O. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED OCT 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDA TS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Knight Intervenors, et al., by and through their attorneys, ROACHELL LAW FIRM. for their Motion, state: 1. They were served with a copy of the Little Rock School District's Motion for Approval of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan on September 29, 1997. 2. Due to several of the leaders of the Knight, et al. Intervenors being out of town, there will be insufficient time to frame a response to its Motion. 3. Knight, et al., Intervenors should be granted an extension of ten (10) days in which to respond to the Motion. WHEREFORE, Knight, et al., Intervenors prays that it be granted an additional ten days or until October 19, 1997, to respond to the Motion for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and that they be granted all other relief to which they may be entitled Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Roachell Arkansas Bar No. 78132 ROACHELL LAW FIRM 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 The Lyon Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, do hereby certify and state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on October 6, 1997 to the following persons: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building. Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JE::-.iNJNGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard W. Roache!! .,- ----- .. - 'RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT !:ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OCT 9 1997 OCT 7 1997 OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, Cl.ERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST FOR A HEARING TO DEVELOP PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION OF THE LRSD FOR THE APPROVAL OF A REVISED PLAN On November 30, 1995, the LRSD filed a motion for an order - dismissing this case retroactively. This court, which had by that time considerable knowledge about the quality of plan implementation efforts in the LRSD, denied the motion on March 11, 1996. This court reasoned in part (at 8): The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments (although some improvements have been made). Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years, the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. On September 26, 1997, the LRSD filed a brief motion and a short memorandum seeking \"approval of LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan.\" Despite the foregoing ruling, the memorandum, incorporated by reference in the motion (para. 1 - 10), asserts that \"LRSD has now substantially complied with its obligations under the plan for six years.\" AT 1. It also characterizes the new plan as one which \"leaves it to the district's professionals to determine the best means to fulfill each obligation.\" At 4. In brief, officials found to exhibit frequently \"indifference or outright recalcitrance toward (their] commitments\" asset that they are entitled to have the court approve a largely standardless plan. Put another way, LRSD asserts the right to have approved a plan under which a number of unidentified persons define the content of the district's obligations, as they go along. It is apparent that the motion of the LRSD presents - substantial questions, warranting careful consideration. The predicate for this view is not limited to the foregoing general observations about the past performance and the degree of discretion granted by the plan. First. LRSD cites the Supreme Court decision in Rufo v Inmates of Suffolk Co. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), concerning modification of a consent decree. That decision holds that a party seeking modification of a consent decree \"bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.\" Id., at 383. It \"may meet it initial burden by showing a significant change either in factual conditions or in law.\" Id., at 384 . In considering factual matter, it is appropriate to evaluate whether a party \"made a 2 reasonable effort to comply with the decree .... \" Id., at 385. Second. Once a party has met its burden of showing a factual or legal matter warranting modification, the court \"should determine whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.\" Id., at 391. This can not be said is there is simply an effort \"to rewrite a consent decree so that is conforms to the constitutional floor.\" Id. Third. The Court of Appeals applied Rufo in this case to a proposal concerning the closing of Ish Incentive School. LRSD v PCSSD, 56 F3d 904, 912-15 (8th Cir. 1995). In approving that proposal, the court emphasized with regard to the replacement school for Ish students, \"King will be integrated.\" Id., at 914. In the light of the foregoing factors, including the - standards governing in the case of a request for modification of a consent decree, the Joshua Intervenors seek a hearing to discuss at least the following factors. (1.) An opportunity for intervenors to conduct discovery. The LRSD relies to a considerable extent on assertion. The plan refers to policies (unspecified) in many areas. The meaning of the educational component of the plan is not self-evident. The quality of implementation efforts is relevant under Rufo. The impact of the student assignment proposals on desegregation is significant in view of the appellate ruling in this case cited above. (2.) The need for a report or reports by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the nature and the quality of 3 LRSD implementation in key areas. The LRSD seeks to dilute its obligation to address achievement disparity, as wells racial disparity in other areas. Compare the initial portion of the Interdistrict Plan to the new plan. It is appropriate to request ODM to determine whether the LRSD made an organized effort to eliminate the achievement disparity and other racial disparities to the extent possible, before changing the plan. Rufo addresses the quality of implementation efforts, and cautions against efforts to move to the \"constitutional floor: -- from the provisions to which a party voluntarily agreed. (3.) The possibility of a delay in the consideration of the motion until the court of appeals reviews the denial of a fee award to intervenors' counsel. The parties should be on equal - footing when addressing such fundamental changes in the plans. That is not the case now. (4.) A time period for the intervenors to respond to the motion, whatever the court's reaction to these issues. District court decisions cited by the LRSD do not warrant the relief sought by the District. In the Denver litigation, the court found in 1987 that \"the defendants have made a sincere and strenuous effort to meet the requirements of the October 1985 Order.'' Keyes v School District No. 1, 653 F. Supp. 1536, 1540 (D. Colo. 1987); see also Keyes, 902 F. Supp. 1274, 1286 (D. Colo. 1995) (\"The District has complied in good faith with the Interim Decree entered by this Court in 1987.\"). The court in the Dallas case voted significant improvement in the district's 4 implementation efforts over time. Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454, 457, 460, 477 (N.D. Tex. 1994). This case does not present a parallel situation. Here, the court has found implementation to be deficient. E.g., Order of March 11, 1996, at 8-9. (5.) The district's request that ODM monitoring continue to be restrained. In intervenor's view, as noted, ODM monitoring should focus on key elements of the current plan and that the ODM monitoring role should be consisitent with the one which the Court of Appeals established. (6.) The actions, advice and recommendations provided by the court or through the ODM to the school district which actions. advice and recommendations have not been otherwise shared with the intervenors. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the court to set a hearing for the purpose of developing procedures for the consideration of the motion of the LRSD for the approval of the revised plan. The Intervenors further respectfully request that ODM monitoring be resumed and continued in the interim and in the manner contemplated and directed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. With respect this requested relief, Joshua also respectfully requests that the court and the ODM disclose any and all information, assistance, advice and counsel which, it or anyone associated with the court, have provided to the Little Rock School District or any of its employees, board members or agents during the past year, during 5 - the time when monitoring was abated. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading was s~ry~ via United States mail to all counsel of record on this ~ day of October, 1997. 6  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF ., V . NO . LR - C - 8 2 - 8 6.it. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL NECEn,m DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. DCi 14 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG PCSSD PETITION FOR RELEASE FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION INTRODUCTION The PCSSD believes that it has earned unitary status. It asks this Court co examine the record that has been made, to hold a hearing on those issues, if any, which might be legitimately in controversy, and to ultimately enter its decree declaring that the PCSSD has earned unitary status and release it from further court supervision. In this peticion, the PCSSD will briefly revisit the background of this case, will set forth the controlling law, will examine the determinations of other courts from around the country which have declared other districts to be unitary, and will then apply the facts of this case to the controlling legal principles. BACKGROUND This action was filed on November 30, 1982 by the LRSD against the PCSSD and others. 1 Liability was adjudicated against the PCSSD and others on April 10, 1984 and a consolidation of the three school districts in Pulaski County was ordered. Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (hereafter the Court of Appeals), en bane, affirmed mos~ of the findings of liability of the district court, but reversed the court ordered consolidation and prescribed a different remedy. The Court of Appeals ordered that the boundaries of the LRSD would become those of the city of Little Rock as they then existed. ~he Court of Appeals also ordered the transfer of the Granite Moun~ain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. As a result of these transfers, the PCSSD lost 36% of its tax base, one-third of its schools, and 25% of its students. In the same opinion, the Court of Appeals ordered all three districts t o develop desegregation plans that would distribute students in a way such that each school would have approximately the same racial balance as each district had as a whole. Significantly, the Court of Appeals specifically held that the remedy it then ordered was a comolete remedy for the constitutional violations of which the PCSSD had been found guilty; specifically those violations relating to annexations and deannexatior.s, segregated housing, school siting, student 1The LRSD supports the PCSSD in its petition for unitary status. assignments, special education, transportation, employment of faculty and administrators, and black participation in school affairs. Thereafter, o~her proceedings occurred, both before the district court and the Court of Appeals, culminating in 1989 in the Settlement Agreement and the agreed upon Desegregation Plan for each school district. While the present PCSSD Plan was not =inalized in all of its particulars until April, 1992, the PCSSD has operated since 1989 under substantially the same plan. Thus, the PCSSD will highlight for the Court its efforts and activities since 1989 which it believes warrant a finding of unitary status. THE APPLICABLE LAW In 1992, the United States Supreme Court discussed the issue of unitary status ~n Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992), explaining that: [A)s we explained last term in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. , , 111 S.Ct. 630, 636, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991), the term \"unitary\" is not a precise concept: \"[I)t is a mistake to treat words such as 'dual' and 'unitary' as if they were actually found in the Constitution .... Courts have used the term 'dual' to denote a school system which has engaged in intentional segregation of students by race, and 'unitary' to describe a school system which has been brought into compliance with the command of the Constitution. We are not sure how useful it is to define these terms more precisely, or to create subclasses within them.\" It follows that we must be cautious not to attribute to the term a utility it does not have. The term \"unitary\" does not confine the discretion and authority 3 of the District Court in a way that departs from traditional equitable principles. 112 S.Ct. at 1443-44. The Freeman court further explained that: [l] Proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of its facts. Green, supra, at 439, 88 S.Ct., at 1694. Here, as in most cases where the issue is the degree of compliance with a school desegregation decree, a critical beginning point is the degree of racial imbalance in the school district, that is to say a comparison of the proportion of majority to minority students in individual schools with the proportions of the races in the district as a whole. This inquiry is fundamental, for under the former de jure regimes racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of or hostility towards the disfavored race. In accord with this principle, the District Court began its analysis with an assessment of the current racial mix in the schools throughout DCSS and the explanation for the racial imbalance it found. 112 S.Ct. at 1437. The PCSSD will comply with this requirement, as did the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1996 in the Wilmington case when it af:irmed the district court's declaration of unitary scatus in Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education of the State of Delaware, et al., 90 F.3d 752 (3rd Cir. 1996) : A critical starting point in identifying vestiges of discrimination is the degree of racial imbalance in the school districts. This inquiry is fundamental, because under the former de jure regime, a racial exclusion was both the means and the end of a policy motivated by disparagement of, and hostility towards, the disfavored race. The Court's 1968 opinion in Green squarely addressed this issue, noting that \"[t]he pattern of separate 'white' and 'Negro' schools ... established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern of segregation to which Brown I and Brown II were particularly addressed.\" Green, 391 U.S. at 435, 88 S.Ct. at 1693. However, the Green Court also made clear that in examining the problem of racial imbalance in 4 our schools, we are to look \"not just to the composition of student bodies ... but to every facet of school operations - - faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities.\" Id.; see also Swann, 402 U.S. at 18, 91 S.Ct. at 1277 (the Green factors are \"among the most important indicia of segregated system.\") Because compliance with Green factors is a condition precedent to unitary status, we will survey each of those factors here. 90 F.3d at 760. The PCSSD will likewise assess the Green factors especially as each of them is addressed in its Desegregation Plan. The Wilminoton Court also commented upon federal court supervision in general. Addressing the Supreme Court's decision in Jenkins, the Wilminoton Court noted: Given the Court's recent assertion that federal supervision of local school districts \"'was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination,\"' Jenkins, U.S. , 115 S.Ct. at 2049 (quoting Dowell, 498 U.S. at:247, 111 S.C~. at 637), we underscore that the phrase \"to the extent praccicable\" implies a reasonable limit on the duration of that federal supervision. Indeed, to extend federal court supervision indefinitely is neither practicable, desirable, nor proper. 90 F.3d at 760. The Wilmington Court further explained that: This equitable remedy and, by definition, its jurisprudential legitimacy, were meant to have a limited lifespan. The remedy was designed to serve only as an implement for monitoring and guidance, not as a permanent substitute for state and local school boards, or [**84] indeed, for the state legislature. Thus in our zeal to insure maximum educational opportunities for all Delaware school students, the federal courts must bear in mind that the responsibility for administering the schools ultimately belongs to locally elected officials. Indeed, we must acknowledge that although it has been proper for us to supervise multiple generations of students in the service of unassailable ideals, in the process we have also denied multiple generations of elected officials the freedom to participate fully in representative government. 90 F.3d at 779 5 Additional legal principles and teachings from other cases will be set forth as appropriate infra as particular topics are addressed. THE LAW OF THIS CASE The Court of Appeals, in its 1990 decision, reaffirmed the 1985 en bane court's decision that the previously mandated territorial exchanges were the remedy for all of the interdistrict violations. It explained that: We also held, however, agreeing in this respect with the District Court, that interdistrict violations of the Constitution had occurred, and that an interdistrict remedy was accordingly required. We directed the District Court, on remand, to adjust the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD in two respects: (1 ) by transferring the Granite Mountain area from LRSD to PCSSD; and (2) by expanding LRSD so that the new boundary line becween it and PCSSD would be the city limits of the City of Little Rock, as they then existed. We further held--addressing the question of student attendance within each of the districts--that \"each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, supra, 778 F.2d at 435. Our opinion included a number of other directions with respect to magnet schools, student-attendance arrangements, and other matters. The District Court held that LRSD would automatically expand whenever the city annexed new territory, so that LRSD would always be contiguous with the city as it existed from time to time. We reversed. We held that the remedy contemplated by our en bane opinion was intended to be a complete cure for all interdistrict violations that we had found. The en bane opinion, we said, prescribed \"a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past,\" including all interdistrict violations. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Circ. 1986) (per curiam) . Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1377 (8th Cir. 1990) 6 It is significant to note that many features of the PCSSD Plan, the Interdistrict Plan, and the Plans of the other school districts were not specifically mandated as remedial devices by the Court of Appeals. For instance, the six interdistrict schools, while subsequently embraced by the Court of Appeals, were never mandated as part of any prescribed remedy. For that matter, the Court of Appeals never specifically mandated that the PCSSD pursue affirmative action in hiring and in staffing its schools and other operations. Indeed, it held in 1985 that the territorial transfer was the remedy for, among other things, violations in the areas of special education, transportation, and employment of faculty and administrators. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Soecial School District, 778 F.2d 404, 434-435 (8th Cir. 1985 ) . To be sure, these topics and others are prominently featured in the Plan. Some are among the Green factors to be discussed later. However, because they were not specifically mandated as part of any remedy, issues arise such as burden of proof as to compliance and will be discussed fully infra. were 1985. THE GREEN FACTORS I. RACIAL BALANCE AND STUDENT ASSIGNMENT The guidelines for racial balance in all three districts initially addressed and laid down by the en bane Court in It explained then that: In constructing a desegregation remedy, a court may not rigidly require a particular racial balance. Pasadena Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436-38, 96 S.Ct. 2697, 2704-06, 49 L.Ed.2d 599 ((1976); 7 Milliken I, 418 U.S. at 739-40, 94 S.Ct. at 3124-25; Swann, 402 U.S. at 22-25, 91 S.Ct. at 1279-81. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the awareness of the racial composition of a school district or school districts is a useful starting point in developing an effective remedy, and thus the limited use of racial ratios is within the Court's equitable discretion. Swann, 402 U.S. at 25, 91 S.Ct. at 1280. Thus, the Supreme Court has approved a remedy imposed by the district court requiring that all schools in the school district be roughly within the same racial balance. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 455 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2941, 2945 n. 3, 61 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Swann, 402 U.S. at 23-25, 91 S.Ct. at 1279-80. Our Court has consequently approved the use of flexible ratios in desegregation remedies on numerous occasions ... In any event, in this case, we have closely tailored the remedy to the violations and we are not requiring a particular racial balance in each district (Citations omitted.) LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 433. The en bane Court then articulated the guideline applicable in this case: 4. After the boundaries between LRSD and PCSSD have been adjusted, each school district as reconstituted shall be required to revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district. Consistent with earlier district court orders with respect to these schools, school districts may, where necessary, be permitted to depart from this remedial guideline in that school enrollments may over- or underrepresent blacks or whites by as much as one-fourth of the remedial guideline for either race. We see no reason why, on this record, the variance should exceed this level. [Emphasis added.] 778 F.2d at 435. Ultimately, of course, the current PCSSD Plan was examined by the Court of Appeals which approved the student assignment goals agreed to by all of the parties. The Court of Appeals 8 explicitly approved the student assignment goals of the PCSSD and the other parties interpreting them as follows: So far as racial ratios were concerned, the Plan included the following goals: 13. With the exception of Bayou Meto, the goal of the plan shall be to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools .... 14. With the exception of Bayou Meto, it is hoped that the dynamics of the plan will result, by the end of the implementation period, in all PCSSD schools being within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing district-wide average of blacks by organizational level. However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d at 1378-79. - As will be explained further, the PCSSD believes it has satisfied, for a period of years, the racial balance and student assignment components of its Plan. Before specifically examining the racial balance outcomes in the PCSSD, it is useful to examine the racial balance outcomes that pertain in Freeman v. Pitts, in which a declaration of unitary status was affirmed even upon facts dramatically different than the outcomes found in the PCSSD. As the Supreme Court explained in Freeman: Racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. It is to be pursued when racial imbalance has been caused by a constitutional violation. Once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors. Swann, 402 U.S., at 31-32, 91 S.Ct., at 1283-84 9 (\"Neither school authorities nor district courts are constitutionally required to make year-by-year adjustments of the racial composition of student bodies once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and racial discrimination through official action is eliminated from the system. This does not mean that federal courts are without power to deal with future problems; but in the absence of a showing that either the school authorities or some other agency of the State has deliberately attempted to fix or alter demographic patterns to affect the racial composition of the schools, further intervention by a district court should not be necessary\"). If the unlawful de jure policy of a school system has been the cause of the racial imbalance in student attendance, that condition must be remedied. The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation. 112 S.Ct. at 1447. It is instructive to set forth the outcomes of the DeKalb County schools as summarized by the United States Supreme Court. Concerned with racial imbalance in the various schools of the district, respondents presented evidence that during che 1986-1987 school year DCSS had the following features: (1) 47% of the students attending DCSS were black; (2) 50% of the black students attended schools that were over 90% black; (3) 62% of all black students attended schools that had more than 20% more blacks than the systemwide average; (4) 27% of white students attended schools that were more than 90% white; (5) 59% of the white students attended schools that had more than 20% more whites than the systemwide average; (6) of the 22 DCSS high schools, five had student populations that were more than 90% black, while five other schools had student populations that were more than 80% white; and (7) of the 74 elementary schools in DCSS, 18 are over 90% black, while 10 are over 90% white. Id., at 31a. 112 s.ct. ac 1438. Despite these statistical outcomes, the United States Supreme Courc found that the system was unitary with respect to student assignment and racial balance. As we will examine below, the track record of the PCSSD is far superior to that of the 10 schools in DeKalb County, Georgia, is in compliance with any and all tests which may be reasonably applied, and that the PCSSD has demonstrated its entitlement to unitary status. THE PCSSD OUTCOMES District-wide, the racial composition of the PCSSD since 1989 has been as follows: I I 89-90 I I Total I 21,607 I I % Black I 26 I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 90-91 I 91-92 I 92-93 I 93-94 I 94.95 21,597 I 21,062 I 21,633 I 20,426 I 20,417 26 I 27 I 28 I 30 I 31 I 95-96 I 96-97 I 20,534 I 20,295 I 32 I 33 Since 1989, the composition of the District's elementary schools has been as follows: School Adkins Elem Total % Black Arnold Drive Elem Total % Black Baker Elem Total % Black Bates Elem Total % Black Bayou Meto Elem Total % Black Cato Elem Total % Black Clinton Elem Total % Black College Station Elem Total % Black Crystal Hill Elem Total % Black PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EIGHT YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON' 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93.94 371 360 352 420 411 40 36 39 36 37 387 411 408 390 348 18 16 14 18 23 294 291 268 283 294 27 30 25 27 25 698 638 737 680 599 47 46 47 45 45 602 596 611 648 649 2 2 2 1 1 656 655 663 650 569 21 24 21 21 22 242 279 310 326 277 40 38 34 33 40 776 746 40 43 94.95 95-96 96-97 397 343 312 39 36 38 375 380 381 25 24 22 304 318 318 24 27 24 550 485 464 53 56 54 639 635 628 1 2 3 523 552 542 23 22 22 661 661 739 49 50 47 316 309 323 43 41 41 791 790 778 45 46 46 21995-1996 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD PCSSD Dated January 30, 1996, by Office of Desegregation Monitoring, Docket No. 2614 11 I I I School 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 Dupree Elem Total 470 414 431 458 428 435 462 438 % Black 20 21 24 23 22 22 26 26 Fuller Elem Total 587 560 529 524 473 431 381 375 % Black 57 56 58 57 63 58 57 59 Harris Elem Total 633 616 605 546 479 331 325 303 % Black 31 32 34 40 47 44 50 53 Jacksonville Elem Total 796 817 844 847 763 759 752 731 % Black 32 28 27 27 31 37 41 42 Landmark Elem Total 563 566 522 518 498 499 484 504 % Black 47 46 44 46 46 43 41 43 Lawson Elem Total 334 345 331 321 304 305 308 294 % Black 19 15 16 14 16 23 19 16 Oak Grove Elem Total 572 573 515 469 438 435 451 421 % Black 12 14 13 24 24 22 23 24 Oakbrooke Elem Total 678 659 629 592 600 449 455 453 % Black 25 21 18 18 21 22 23 24 Pine Forrest Elem Total 625 677 658 518 434 455 498 456 % Black 14 14 15 20 21 19 20 21 Pinewood Elem Total 614 619 631 619 580 549 579 543 % Black 27 27 27 30 31 29 31 35 Robinson Elem Total 450 433 443 420 411 388 387 382 % Black 22 22 23 25 24 22 25 21 Scott Elem Total 203 207 205 191 147 158 136 127 % Black 37 34 34 35 34 32 36 35 Sherwood Elem Total 518 448 443 490 450 459 463 416 % Black 24 24 26 24 26 24 27 25 Sylvan Hills Elem Total 755 802 755 735 685 424 444 422 % Black 18 16 17 18 23 21 25 24 Taylor Elem Total 455 468 423 420 388 409 420 397 % Black 24 28 26 26 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_238","title":"Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1997-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School attendance"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, Little Rock School District (LRSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"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/238"],"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\nt' (.'Ii,,,,. ~/1-' '{ I  .J\n1/ - - -- - - October 1 State Department Enrollment Report - LRS -- - - - All Enrolled Students: 02-0ci-97 --- - ----- ----------- ---- 001 CENTRAL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ~:, 13 10 10~8' B. 18 132 213 244 4 2 2 0 0 716 I w 11 1~-'I\n:) 26 147 168 201 2 0 4 4 1 0 653 ~ 12 _\nl.\u0026lt;} 0 97 104 104 138 0 I 3 4 0 452 r'I J., KF 18' I 1,\u0026gt;134~ 20 13 ~t 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALFOR:CENTRAL 97 384 505 596/lt 6 3 9 9 1 1J 002 HALL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total \"I 3 10 ,s=r/ d 24 33 104 99 4 l 4 7 0 0 276 0 w II /'l! 1 w 21 31 92 89 4 2 5 3 0 I 248 - 12 .\u0026gt;./a C 31 42 85 76 3 1 6 2 0 0 246 1 KF 7'8'-',I 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 /'!O (1 s 4 6 3 ~o 0 0 0 0 0 14 TOT AL FOR: HALL 71 (O ,i180 107 289 272~ 1 4 15 12 0 1 \u0026gt;13,gfi 1 1i ~ L._..../ 003 MANNM/S Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 77 60 75 76 0 I 2 0 0 292 08 57 75 69 81 2 0 1 0 287 09 8 75 59 86 0 4 2 4 0 1 279 ~~i-- TOTAL FOR: MANN MIS iq 182 210 203 2434\u0026gt;llr2 5 4 7 0 2?p 858 PARKVIEW Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 51 87 70 84 3 4 I 0 302 11 68 75 83 80 2 1 3 0 0 313 12 54 83 51 96 v\\3 5 3 I 0 0 296 B,.,~ TOTAL FOR: PARKVIEW \u0026gt;\\\\\u0026lt;$173 245 204 260 ~ 8 7 5 8 1 o~'I 911 BOOKER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 13 16 20 28 0 0 0 0 0 78 02 4 18 22 13 24 I 0 2 0 0 0 80 03 6 20 19 22 23 0 0 0 0 86 04 3 19 22 21 22 0 0 0 0 86 05 3 22 24 28 21 0 1 I 0 0 98 06 4 17 26 29 19 I 0 0 0 0 93 KF 4 18 19 17 21 0 0 0 0 0 76 ~?7 ft\n121 148 150 158pfi 3 4 6 0 0 ,~ 597 DUNBAR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total Information Sen-ices Department - All Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-97 - ---- 07 52 42 77 86 4 5 2 3 0 0 271 08 51 45 71 82 3 4 2 2 0 0 260 09 48 53 69 57~ 4 3 2 0 240 /17 TOTALFOR:DUNBAR ~'I I 151 140 217 225 10 13 7 7 o,~ 008 FAIR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 29 23 131 94 0 I 0 0 0 0 278 II 14 23 84 100 3 0 0 0 0 225 12 16 25 83 102 I 0 0 0 0 228 s 4 4 II 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 ~17 TOT AL FOR: FAIR ,ii 63 75 309 303(tl~4 1 1 0 0 '/ 757 009 FORST HT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 34 34 77 68 I 3 0 2 0 I 220 08 36 20 66 76 3 0 1 0 0 0 202 09 27 26 81 74 2 0 0 0 212 s 3 I 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 TOT AL FOR: FORST HT f~' 100 81 231 221\u0026gt;1~5 4 3 2 0 1 ,6 648 10 OIO PULHTJ Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 56 47 84 65 1 2 2 0 0 258 08 53 52 78 66 0 2 0 0 253 09 50 53 66 75 I 1 1 0 0 0 247 s 4 2 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 :f11 TOT AL FOR: PUL HT J i\"' 163 154 230 201Ai'12 3 4 4 0 0 1i 767 011 SOUTHWST Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 12 8 68 74 2 3 0 0 0 0 167 08 23 11 82 58 0 4 0 0 0 179 09 6 6 65 65 2 3 0 I 0 0 148 s I 13 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 ,g~t' TOTA L FOR: SOUTHWST c,c4i2 26 228 198 #i( 4 10. 0 2 0 0 ,~ 510 012 MCCLELLA Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 10 26 23 147 152 1 0 0 0 351 11 21 22 128 125 0 3 1 0 0 0 300 12 18 19 103 109 3 1 2 0 0 0 255 s 1 2 17 9 t\u0026gt; 0 0 0 0 0 ~\u0026gt;17TOTALFOR:MCCLELLA ,~'7ti6 66 395 395 \"\" 4 5 4 0 0 013 HENDERSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total LR.soIn formation Services Department 2 Enrolled Students: 02-Oct-97 07 14 13 102 95 I 0 2 I 0 229 08 14 10 103 96 0 I I 2 0 0 227 09 22 13 104 103 I 0 0 2 0 0 245 s ii 2 0 17 4 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 o 23 \"lll., 52 36 326 298 t,'tl-2 3 5 o,re CLOVRJR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 13 2 99 68 3 3 0 1 0 0 189 08 8 10 109 87 4 0 0 0 0 219 09 6 13 99 90\n_ 2 0 0 0 214 ~ci7, TOT AL FOR: CLOVR JR f'27 25 307 245~j 7 9 1 1 0 0 ,i 622 MABELJR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 07 21 20 64 68 0 0 0 0 0 174 08 17 13 64 63 0 0 0 0 2 0 159 09 24 20 55 57 0 0 0 0 0 157 1~1 s 3 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 . TOTA L FOR: MJ\\BEL JR (i'\n65 57 184 195 ~{\\ 0 1 0 0 2 1 \u0026gt;Ic s\n?~k 017 BALE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 6 2 14 24 2 I 0 0 0 0 49 02 2 5 4 18 18 0 0 1 0 0 47 03 2 4 3 15 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 40 04 2 4 5 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 05 2 8 10 20 13 0 0 0 0 53 06 2 2 20  14 0 0 1 0 0 0 39 E 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 KF 5 5 5 19 18 0 3 0 0 0 51 PK _9 1\u0026gt; 3 7 11 10 2 0 0 \" 0 \"-9/3. 5 fi1 TOT AL FOR: BALE \" 44 34 133 132,?li 4 5 9 1 0 0 1C\\ 362 018 BRADY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 5 8 25 20 2 0 0 0 62 02 3 11 11 21 15 0 3 0 0 63 03 2 9 2 20 15 0 2 1 0 0 50 04 3 3 4 16 9 0 3 6 4 0 0 45 05 2 5 8 18 8 0 0 43 06 6 5 9 2 1 2 1 0 0 27 E 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 KF 3 5 9 19 20 0 2 0 0 0 56 LRSD Information Services Department 3 - Enrolled ~tude_~ts: 02-Oct-97 ---- PK 5 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 (\u0026gt; 0 \"\" 18 ~1 TOTALFOR:BRADY qi 50 48 134 101 ,.P 5 II 14 9 0 0 i' 372 -- -- - - --- - ----- BADGETT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 I I 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 02 2 0 2 16 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 03 1 0 1 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 04 2 3 3 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 05 0 I 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 06 0 0 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 E 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 KF 2 4 15 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PK 0 :, 2 11 ~'f 18 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 1) o '!J/7,-31 cp- 1 TOTALFOR:BADGETT '' 8 11 110 1041 0 0 0 0 0 0 233 MCDERMOT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 24 13 19 14 2 0 0 0 74 02 3 13 11 22 22 0 1 0 0 71 03 2 12 19 28 13 0 0 0 0 0 73 04 2 20 10 19 18 0 2 0 0 71 05 3 13 10 23 21 0 0 0 0 1 69 06 3 10 7 19 27 0 0 2 0 0 0 65 KF 3 l( 14 10 13 15 ?\u0026gt;I 0 0 0 0 54 aJ7 TOTALFOR:MCDERMOT ~ 106 80 143 130,\" 5 3 5 4 0 1 ,i 477 021 CARVER Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 19 12 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 69 02 4 26 16 22 23 0 0 2 0 0 90 03 3 20 18 29 19 0 0 1 0 0 88 04 3 26 12 32 20 0 0 4 0 0 95 05 4 26 21 31 19 0 1 0 0 100 06 4 20 22 24 26 0 0 1 0 0 94 KF 3 A 16 10 9 21 :,,,0 0 2 2 0 0 60 ,~1- 0 TOT AL FOR: CARVER ~l, 153 111 168 144J' o 3 6 11 0 0 ~ 596 022 BASELINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 4 4 24 19 0 0 0 54 02 2 1 2 15 16 0 0 0 0 0 35 03 2 0 5 17 23 0 0 0 48 04 3 2 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 LRSDI nformationS ervicesD epartment 4 :AlEl nrolled Stud\nrrts: - ~-- '...----- TOT AL FOR: BASELINE OS 06 E KF PK 2 2 4 4 0 I 2 0 2 S ) 2: 'i3 2! 17 11 0 IS 12 I 2 4 0 17 28 0 11\n\u0026gt;..116 ~ 0 132 135~~ 3 I 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 02-Qcl-97 0 I 35 0 0 29 0 0 8 0 0 54 0 O O 777- 35 2 1Y323 023 FAIR PRK Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 01 02 03 04 OS 06 KF PK 2 2 2 S 4 2 4 I 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 1 13 ,?~ 25 29 11 24 0 13 12 I 18 11 0 7 8 0 7 9 0 7 14 0 14 16 0 S ,1 12 0 82 106 {~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 44 0 30 0 34 0 20 0 21 0 27 0 36 0 .i/1.'/3. 6 0 ~ 248 024 FORST PK Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOT AL FOR: FORST PK 01 02 03 04 OS 06 KF 3 18 16 IS 13 0 3 22 3 17 3 16 2 11 2 12 3 16 if'\\ 112 17 19 19 IS 9 12 107 14 17 0 16 13 0 12 20 0 13 12 0 14 19 0 12 IS ~ 0 96 109 '\n/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 3 0 0 0 I 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 71 65 68 52 55 4~1 0 57 0 C., 430 025 FRANKLIN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOT AL FOR: FRANKLIN 01 02 03 04 OS 06 E KF J\u0026gt;K ~ LRSD Information Services Department 3 4 3 4 2 2 4 0 2 1 2 4 30 31 2 30 27 0 30 24 23 19 0 0 0 0 1 14 18 0 0 0 11 24 0 2 I I 4 0 2 33 40 I 8 1\n. 4 24 ~, 34 (\\ 0 ?J' 17 14 206 221  2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 61 55 46 33 37 18 0 0 77 q\n/7 o~ofn 0 0 (, 464 5 W)Enrolled Stude~ts: --- 02-Oct-97 ----- - ---- -- --- 026 GARLAND Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 15 17 1 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 0 14 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 03 2 0 I 16 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 37 04 3 0 0 20 12 0 0 0 0 0 33 05 2 0 0 14 16 I 2 0 0 0 0 33 06 2 0 I 18 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 E 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 CjJ7o KF 2 0 14 18 I 0 0 0 0 0 34 PK 0 Q 0 11 it, 5 ~ 0 0 0 ~o t 18 TOTALFOR:GARLAND lJ 2 4 127 126-J\n7 4 0 0 01~71 027 GIBBS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 2 13 9 11 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 02 2 11 9 II 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 03 2 12 6 14 9 2 I I 0 0 0 45 04 2 8 12 18 9 0 0 0 0 0 48 05 2 11 12 9 14 I I 0 0 0 0 48 06 2 14 7 11 JO 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 ~-\n7 KF 2 9 JO 10 JO 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 TOT AL FOR: GIBBS rf?\u0026gt;78 65 84 77 ,1.,\\ 4 2 1 0 0 o1 311 028 CHICOT Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 3 10 9 26 24 3 0 0 0 0 73 02 3 8 6 22 '.3I 4 4 0 0 0 0 75 03 4 8 6 25 26 5 2 0 0 0 73 04 4 8 8 27 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 68 05 3 5 7 24 24 2 0 0 0 0 63 06 3 12 4 27 22 2 3 0 0 0 71 E 4 2 7 6 0 0 I 0 0 0 20 (, ,,. KF 4 6 7 23 16 3 4 0 0 0 0 59 PK JO 11 7 II 1~ 7 0 0 0 0 0 D Q-6_/). 35 TOT AL FOR: CHICOT f,1 71 56 192 178 ~12' 2 15 3 0 0 0 ~() 537 029 WESTHIL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 2 7 6 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 02 2 5 6 14 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 03 2 4 8 20 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 04 2 7 20 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 LRsD Information Services Department 6 -- -- :,\\II Enroll~ Students: 02-Oct-97 -- 05 2 9 7 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 06 2 8 12 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 7\u0026gt;1' KF 2 5 7 16 11 0 0 0 0 0 40 TOT AL FOR: WEST HIL q?'45 47 114 108 fi'o 0 0 0 0 315 JEFFRSN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 14 15 14 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 02 3 26 19 17 11 0 0 0 0 0 74 03 3 24 15 18 15 0 I I 0 0 0 74 04 3 18 19 16 13 0 0 0 I 0 0 67 05 3 23 23 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 81 06 3 25 17 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 E 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ~7 KF 4 21 17 13 5 ~I 0 0 0 0 58 TOT AL FOR: JEFFRSN ,\nf\"1 53 126 117 110~ 1 1 3 1 1 0 1 513 CLOVREL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 3 5 43 35 I 2 0 0 0 0 89 02 3 3 32 37 0 0 0 0 0 74 03 3 2 I 40 24 0 0 0 0 0 68 04 2 l 2 25 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 05 2 3 2 27 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 06 1 2 0 21 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 KF 4 0 4 31 35 1 0 0 0 0 72 1'f7' PK 4~ 12,: 17 ~ 0 2 0 0 0 0 t/7, 36 TOT AL FOR: CLOVR EL ~ 18 16 231 2384t\n2 7 0 0 0 0 11 512 032 DODD Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 10 5 14 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 35 02 3 5 5 11 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 03 I 3 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 04 2 4 7 11 II 1 0 0 0 0 35 05 2 5 11 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 06 2 4 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 E 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ~~7~ KF 2 -rl 6 3 4 9 ~I 0 0 0 0 0 23 TOT AL FOR: DODD 36 38 78 67 ,~ 4 0 0 0 0 ~ 224 033 MEADCLIF Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 5 7 23 21 0 0 0 0 58 LRSD Information Services Department 7 ---- -- - -- -!t\\1E1n ~lled ~tudents: 02-Oct-97 --- 02 3 7 4 26 17 0 0 1 0 1 0 56 03 2 2 2 23 18 0 0 0 1 0 47 04 2 3 2 22 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 45 05 2 5 3 13 17 0 0 0 0 40 06 2 5 4 20 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 fl1\" KF 2 6 4 16 13 ~o 0 0 0 0 40 TOT AL FOR: MEADCLIF ft. 33 26 143 120 '?Ju I 4 2 0 3 0 10 332 MITCHELL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 1 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 02 2 0 17 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 03 3 1 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 04 2 0 0 13 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 05 2 2 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 06 2 0 2 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 E 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 KF 2 1 2 19 12 1 1 0 0 0 37 q-:,7o PK 2 .s 3 5 /3 8 0 0 0 0 0 _o 0 7.:1NJ8 TOT AL FOR: MITCHELL 8 8 114 109~1 I 0 0 0 I 3, 242 035 ML KING Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 5 31 22 30 35 I 0 0 0 0 0 119 02 4 20 21 20 25 0 0 0 I 0 0 87 03 3 13 25 26 21 0 0 0 0 0 86 04 3 16 15 21 19 0 2 2 0 0 76 05 3 15 13 29 16 I 0 4 I 0 80 06 2 14 JO IO 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 KF 5 20 17 31 23 0 0 0 0 0 92 ~~7 .. p (\\ 16 .3!:i 19 20 .3~75 ~ 0 0 0 I O I 0 '171 TOT AL FOR: M L KING ~\"6 145 142 187 167p 3  3 9 1 0 11 6-58 036 ROCKFELR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total OJ 3 13 9 13 18 0 I 0 0 0 55 02 3 8 7 15 19 0 0 I 0 0 SI 03 3 12 7 21 II 0 0 0 0 53 04 3 9 4 13 24 I 0 0 0 0 52 05 2 8 8 15 12 3 2 0 0 0 0 48 06 2 9 8 13 9 0 I 0 0 0 0 40 KF 4 II 9 15 16 0 0 0 0 53 PK 21 \"'-524 21 S-P29 0 0 O~l,,98 LRSD Information Services Department 8 A.II Enrolled Students: - l,~ 02-Oct-97 B11\u0026gt; 1u1 91 0 ,~ TOTALFOR:ROCKFELR 76 126 138 /i 9 7 2 0 50 --- -- 037 GEYER SP Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total ---- - 01 2 5 5 17 15 2 0 0 1 0 0 45 02 2 1 7 12 22 0 2 0 0 0 0 44 03 2 3 3 14 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 04 2 6 2 13 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 05 1 1 3 10 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 25 06 2 2 7 22 6 0 I 0 0 0 0 38 7~7 KF 2 6 4 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 PK Lt' 7 ri 7 8 ,~ 10 :, 1 0 0~ 0.51~ 35 TOTAL FOR: GEYER SP 31 38 114 123 ?-1 4 4 0 0 JO 316 038 PULHTE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 8 15 29 20 0 1 0 1 0 0 74 02 3 14 11 14 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 03 4 18 14 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 04 3 22 20 22 12 2 0 0 0 0 79 05 2 18 13 22 25 0 0 0 0 0 79 06 2 10 16 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 ${\n~ KF 2 ~10 13 8 7~0 1 I 0 0 0 40 TOT AL FOR: PUL HT E '/' 100 102 130 124 2 2 3 1 0 0 \u0026lt;t 464 039 RIGHTSEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 0 15 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 02 2 0 0 20 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 03 2 0 1 11 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 04 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 05 2 0 20 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 39 06 2 0 0 19 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 KF 2 0 0 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PK 5 3 2 ~ 7 0 0 0 0 0 ,So~ 18 q-\u0026gt;f'I TOT AL FOR: RIGHTSEL ,-:/1 5 106 128,-~ 1 1 0 1 0 0 ~ 249 040 ROMINE Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 5 6 20 13 1 0 0 0 0 46 02 2 6 5 14 12 I 2 0 0 0 41 03 2 7 2 15 11 3 0 I 0 0 40 04 3 5 4 8 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 31 05 2 5 7 9 6 2 0 0 0 0 30 LRSD Information Services Department 9 All Enrolled Students: 02-Ocr-97 - -- - 06 6 4 7 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 28 E 2 I 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 KF 4 9 2 25 18 4 3 0 0 0 62 PK 6 I 8 7 /'! 11 0 0 I 2 0 -'/ I 50736 iJi TOT AL FOR: ROMINE op 51 39 114 92g'~l3 12 3 3 0 lj~\nJ ~ D 042 WASHNGTN Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 14 18 22 26 3 4 I 0 0 89 02 4 17 12 31 25 4 2 I 0 0 0 92 03 4 17 17 25 26 4 0 0 2 0 0 91 04 2 19 8 19 16 I 0 2 I 0 67 05 3 26 12 27 10 5 2 0 0 84 06 4 18 27 20 19 I 2 2 3 0 0 92 i E I 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ~~/0 KF 4 12 8 30 22 4 4 2 0 1 0 83 _pK 1 8 ,\" 12 15.2.112 I 2 2 O Go 0 Ii, 53 TOTALFOR:WASHNGTN ~ 132 115 195 157~3 16 9 11 2 0 t,) 6.6,0. ., 043 WILLIAMS Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 3 14 17 16 19 0 0 0 69 02 3 17 14 16 20 0 0 0 0 69- 03 3 12 18 17 18 0 0 2 0 I 0 68 04 3 13 21 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 05 3 18 17 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 06 3 14 16 24 13 0 0 0 0 ~ ~i 69 KF 3 15 13 15 15 t 0 l 0 0 60 TOT AL FOR: WILLIAMS ~11103 116 123 125~ 0 0 5 4 1 2 / ~79 044 WILSON Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 3 26 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 46 02 2 3 17 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 03 3 2 4 14 25 2 0 0 0 0 l 48 04 2 4 6 23 16 l 0 0 0 0 51 05 2 3 3 18 15 0 0 0 0 0 40 06 2 5 2 19 14 0 0 0 0 0 41 E 2 0 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 i~r KF 3 0 6 32 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 54 PK 3 1 5 5 C, 4 I 0 0 0 0 0 50]- 18 TOT AL FOR: WILSON ~:?,25 28 170 127~,, 7 4 0 0 0 J ,\n, 362 LRSD Information Services Department IO . . 02-Oct-97 ---- ---- -- - - -- WOODRUFF Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 2 2 8 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 38 02 2 2 7 14 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 03 2 4 7 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 04 2 I 2 20 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 OS 2 6 3 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 06 I 6 2 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 KF 2 6 10 5 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 7/~ PK 6 ,~ 9 10 ii 8 1 0 0 0 0 I 0 ~37. .3 4 TOT AL FOR: WOODRUFF ~\\ 33 48 111 90\n/ ' 1 0 0 0 0 d\" 284 046 MABEL EL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 6 13 6 26 24 2 0 0 0 0 72 02 4 10 4 32 14 I 0 0 0 0 62 03 3 9 5 20 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 56 04 4 4 22 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 05 4 6 19 20 I 0 0 0 0 0 so 06 6 4 12 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 E 0 0 3 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 KF 3 8 9 19 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 54 PK q 3 1 4 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 \u0026lt;)~~ 16 117-- TOT AL FOR: MABEL EL q 57 42 156 143j-C\\ 7 2 0 0 0 0 ~ 407 047 TERRY Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 4 22 19 22 20 0 0 0 3 0 0 86 02 3 25 22 13 11 0 0 2 0 0 74 03 3 20 17 14 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 70 04 3 12 16 11 17 0 0 I 0 0 58 OS 3 25 15 IS 19 0 3 0 0 79 06 3 15 14 19 19 0 0 0 2 0 0 69 1t/f., KF 4\n\" 17 14 22 15 91 I 4 0 0 75 TOT AL FOR: TERRY 7 136 117 116 119(1' 1 3 5 13 0 l ~3511 048 FULBRIGH Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total 01 5 16 26 16 23 0 1 I 0 0 0 83 02 3 10 25 22 8 I 0 0 0 0 0 66 03 3 17 24 19 9 0 0 0 0 71 04 3 18 18 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 OS 4 II 16 24 14 0 0 0 0 0 66 LRSD Information Services Department 11 -(\n) 0 -f /2 ~~l -::Pt-\u0026lt;~.,.,,(\"::\u0026gt; ~~5 .,/to ~1 7~/c\n~/ ?o ---1-i ~~,\ni_ /\n-0/ o/..3 /\n~7~ 6'-Y\no _t,,J~ //, -4(,ND I --vO 0 ..1// 9i)a ~ . /7~. /.7/1 19~7 /0~ 5~ I I... ~j ~ \"\\\\ (1'\nt~, ~,\n, 8, 'ti/ ~.r)\n~le,~ J -?, t/J.\n)p f/\nJ.Y ~~D 7? ~~7(~ 7~~ l,11JI J.c~O 1 30~ '10l -i/\n~~/ /19..80 ~ ~ /~cr:x) 70 c) \u0026amp; - -0 - /2 ------7 1/JIJ t~// c5, ?(Y~ $? I .:\n5:../ 6 7c7,,, /: /t I~ !\n?? 3,/f./ /a:J-/ ~\n21/ t\n7\n! ~( 3 //D 7, ~,_:\n.., .::?c-1 /qc::\n_J r\n,[{lo l\"c:,_ I -------------------------------------- AlEl nrolled Students~- ---- - 06 E KF TOTAL FOR: FULBRIGH --------- 2 16 3 4 _J1 14 16 12 0 17 23 F 10s 142 134 19 0 0 0 14 po 106\nr 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 02-Oct-97 0 64 0 4 0 69 0 ~ 495 050 OTTERCR Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOT AL FOR: OTTER CR 01 02 03 04 05 06 KF 2 13 2 18 2 12 2 14 2 15 2 7 2 ~ 6 ,u 85 9 17 14 12 15 9 13 11 83 7 17 14 10 12 10 87 8 0 8 0 8 I 9 0 14 0 9 0 8 0 64 ,~, 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 47 49 50 54 49 43 ,\n.//, 1 36 1 ~ 328 051 WAKEFIEL Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOTAL FOR: WAKEFIEL 01 02 03 04 05 06 KF 3 3 2 2 3 8 2 I 2 2 3 4 I 3 .1\\ ..\u0026gt;\\ 21 4 22 3 23 3 25 0 18 3. 26 6 20 I 25 20 159 19 0 15 0 31 I 26 0 15 2 35 I 22 ')\"2 163~9 6 0 0 I 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 43 0 70 0 45 0 0 66 0 52 0 ,o 373 052 WATSON Grade Classes WM WF BM BF HM HF AM AF IM IF Total TOT AL FOR: WATSON 01 02 03 04 05 06 KF ffi( LRSD nformation Services Department [\n/u? .\n,,,c ., ~/ 4 4 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 I 3 2 I 43 40 I 2 3 32 26 7 2 2 31 24 32 21 I 0 23 18 I 4 4 33 20 0 6 3 32 32 0 lt O ~ 2 20 31 14 0 ~ 22 24 238 203 )\\~ 4 0 /0 0 (\n. 9, ~ f-:.::\u0026gt;-' Z .:?f\n)..., /~tt:.wi/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 65 0 72 0 50 0 46 (? 1 '/Q 0 61 \"l:\u0026gt; 0 73 0 CJ\"{J3~6 0 /., 493 :::?:,. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993 BUILDING CAPACITIES SCHOOL CAPACITY sr\nNIQR HTQH S~HQ.Q. LS CENTRAL 1891 JA FAIR 954 HALL 1291 MCCLELLAN 1199 PARKVIEW 1000 METROPOLITAN N/A SUBTOTAL: 6335 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS CLOVERDALE 868 DUNBAR 812 FOREST HEIGHTS 858 HENDERSON 907 MABLEVALE 614. MANN 850 PULASKI HEIGHTS 745 SOUTHWEST 737 SUBTOTAL: 6391 ~L~~l:!TARY SCHOOLS \\q BADGET 257\n~BALE 401 J?BASELINE 390 UBOOKER 656 \\~BRADY 467 :\"\n-I1 CARVER 613 JqcmcoT 558 3 , CLOVERDALE 492 J' DODD 328 /\\~,,_F,A IR PARK 351 j CREST PARK 399 ~ 'o FRANKLIN 544 ~i FULBRIGHT 5-4-0 ------ - ..._ ........... .  . ~--.c._~#...-.-.c.,,-:..\n~ . . _..,.,_~---- ..,  1\": !.  Note #1 Note #1 Note #2\nPLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT  E, .. ?U~nQT,AND 31 346 GEYER SPRINGS 328 J-1GIBBS 4 9 ISH (CLOSED) 353 0 33~ --J EFFERSON 492 ING 692 t-tL~MABLEVALE 515\nlo MCDERMOTT 517 33HEADOWCLIFF 465 3-/MITCHEL 346 s-r\noTTER CREEK 351 Ji PULASKI HEIGHTS 374 3C?R IGHTSELL 346 3\u0026amp;, ROCKEFELLER 425 ,H}, ROMINE :tf/ STEPHENS 487 298 4JTERRY 515 51 WAKEFIELD 492 tf\n\u0026gt;WASHlNGTON 939 J\n}-WATSON a -t-i 492 WESTERN HILLS 328 ~ WILLIAMS 517 WILSON 394 45'WOODRUFF 324 SUBTOTAL: 16,332 Notes: Notes reflect changes from p::-eviously established capacities. Note #1: Capacities established 1992 submitted to Federal Court. Note #2: Capacity change from 1992 Desegregation Plan due to additional portable building added. ~ Note #2 Note #2 Note #2 j / F.YI. Date: /..x-.5, -9 7 ar'pm  Gene o Horace rn/ Margie D Melissa fil\"' Skip a,/ Polly IY Linda Return to: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION [OOL DISTRICT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED iHUA, ET AL. iT, ET AL. 1997 OFFIOCFE PLAINTIFF LRSD' s AMi~~Tro MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INT ERVENO RS INTERVENORS ERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS r OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL E REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") for its Answers t Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and reduction of Documents states: TORY NO. 1: Please state the name, title, address and telephone number of each and every individual assisting in the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories. ANSWER: Objection. This interrogatory requests information which is privileged under the work product doctrine and/or the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection, LRSD states that the following persons assisted in the preparation of these answers: Dr. Les Carnine, Christopher Heller and John C. Fendley, Jr. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: In 15 instances in paragraphs II. B. through II. P. of the proposed new plan, the words \"LRSD shall implement programs policies and/or procedures\" followed by a particular subject matter appear. Please identify separately for f:lhomo\\kndlcyllnd'dao-jooh.- CORRECTECDO PY1 0/01/97 LRSD ENROU.MFtH on ICl,4Lo c I Ollf:R I, 199i COi.ii~I HIGH SCHOOLS l-1 rl9_7 w  o I TOlAL 13/ BLK 9E.~!_R(IL_ __ ,,_-_ 1'101~ 7Y5 49 _- .tii~f--=-~9% FAIR I 612 137 8  7511 81% l~ALL 11 - 561 I 179 50 1'117001-it% MCCIf :LLAN. - -j! -.7 9(}! - 121 - 24 ~ --935 - 843/o PARK'IEW 464 403 - 44  - 911~51% ALE SR HIGH , 61 0 0 6 100% s_u_~!OTA_L_ ---3534 154~ .JI~---i~1 __ .?I~ JUNIORH IGHS- '- - ---t--.+ - CLOVERDALE 552  36 34J::: 622 ~% DuIJsAR I 442 ,82 47 1 - nil 57% FORESTI I EIGHTS. - 452 - 170 ---18 / - ij.joJ 70% HENDERSON -, 624 83 -ff-:_:- 1ffi- 86% MABELVALE 380 1'19 7 5o5 506 75% MANN I 446 375 37  858 52% PULASKHI EIGHTS 4371 315 15 767 57% SOUTHWEST I 426 651 19  510 83% ALE JR. HIGH 10 0 01 10~-100% SliafoTAL 1 3769 1453 194 5416 69% - ----------!!- - . I --- l - -- -- et.F.MENTARY-  ----'- 1 -~1'--- BADGEIr 214 19. -- or:- 233-- 92% BALE ---, ~ 2 6 6 '5 7 1 7 38 1 26 - 362 73% BASELINE 18 v 323 83% BOOKER 11 308 2611 28  597 52% BRADY I 235 94 43 v 372 63% CARVER-----, 312 259 25 - 59~i CHICOT 370 121 46 - 537 69% CLOVERDALE ,,::_-469~ 30 -- . 13 V . Yl~ Jl2% DOUD 145 74 5 , 2241 65% FftJRPARK I 188 50 10 , 248 76% FOHESTP ARK 205 219 6 - 430 48% FRANKLIN ~--427 24 13 V 464 --927, FULBRIGITI ---240 -- 246 ___ l :-- 495- 43% GARLAND 1 253 3 15 - 271 93% GEYER SPRINGS 2371 66 13 316 75% GIBBS 161 133 17 - 311 52% JEFFERSON -- 227 2/9 7 ...,. 513 44% KING 354 279 25 - 658 --54~-\n- MABELVALE-- '- 299 __ 92 -- 161  - 407 - 73% MCDERMOTT 273 181 23 - 4 77 57% MEAOOWCLiFF 2_~ _ 57, 12 - 332 79% MITCHELL 223 91 10  242 92% OTTER CREEK '151 167 1of, -m 46% PULASKHI EIGHTS 254 - 193. ... 17 - 464 55% RIGHTSELL 234 9 6 - 249 94% ROCKEFELLER -~ 153 33 450 59% ROMINE 206 78 44 ~ 328 63% TERRY 7.35 243 33 -:: ..... 511 46% WAKEFIELD 322 ~2 -- im-373 86% WASHINGTON 352 2!~ --- 95 :: 660 53% WATSON 441 40 12  49:J U9% WESTERNH ILLS 222 91 21 315 ~ wILuAMs 24a rn ___ Jzl. 479 ~ WILSON 297 53 12  362 8?.% wo65RiJFF- '--201-----:,s -o-=--784---fi SUBT OTAL. 9362 4166 -688 14216- 65% I GRANDT OTAL 16665! 7164 1057 24886 67% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Amboy Elementary School 6002-050 K-05  White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Grade Totals M F M F M F M F K 52 14 8 15 15 0 0 0 0 01 68 20 6 10 29 2 0 0 1 02 78 19 16 20 21 2 0 0 0 03 68 18 13 22 15 0 0 0 0 04 71 21 15 13 22 0 0 0 0 05 63 13 20 .\".I. 12 17 .I 1 0 0 0 Totals 400 105 78 1 \" 92 119~ 5 0 0 1 Percentages 26.3% 19.5% 23.0% 29.8% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 45.8% 52.8% ~~io 1.3% 0.3% Grades 1-5 348 91 70 77 104 5 0 0 1 Percentages 26.1% 20.1% 22.1% 29.9% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 46.3% 52.0% 1.4% 0.3% Aml/Als M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 ~ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% NOV2 l 1997 OFFOICFE DESEGREMGAmTJIITOONR ING North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Belwood Elementary School 6002-053 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 19 2 8 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 35 8 8 11 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 20 5 1 4 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 03 23 5 2 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 18 4 2 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 25 4 7 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 6 3 0 _Q 2 1 ,,..,\u0026amp;.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 \"'\\... Totals 146 31 28.., 46 39\" 0 2 0 0 0 0 - Percentages 21.2% 19.2% 31.5% 26.7% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.4% 58.2% 6Y\u0026gt;7 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 127 29 20 39 37 0 2 0 0 0 0 Percentages 22.8% 15.7% 30.7% 29.1% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.6% 59.8% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Boone Park Elementary School 6002-054 J-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F - M F M F M F  J 35 0 2 / 17 15 r 1 0 0 0 0 0 K 71 4 3 34 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 83 4 8 30 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 58 5 0 28 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 03 60 5 4 33 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 69 4 4 35 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 59 5 2 - 31 20 -t 0 1 0 0 0 0 /_ Totals 435 27 23\" 208 171-'' 4 2 0 0 0 0 ~ Percentages 6.2% 5.3% 47.8% 39.3% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 87.1% i1J. 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 329 23 18 157 126 3 2 0 0 0 0 Percentages 7.0% 5.5% 47.7% 38.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 86.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Crestwood Elementary School 6002-055 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 44 12 17 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 51 11 17 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 51 11 13 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 39 12 12 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 49 12 19 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 31 11 8 ~, 5 6 _c 0 1 0 0 0 0 I Totals 265 69 86 ,., 59 50 ,- 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentages 26.0% 32.5% 22.3% 18.9% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 58.5% 41.1% \u0026gt;J7I . 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 221 57 69 51 43 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentages 25.8% 31.2% 23.1% 19.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 57.0% 42.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Glenview Elementary School 6002-056 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 25 1 1 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 31 3 3 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 22 2 2 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 24 2 5 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 22 1 1 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 34 4 5 -ri 12 13 ,..,,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Totals 158 13 17' 69 59 \" 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Percentages 8.2% 10.8% 43.7% 37.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.0% 81.0% %17  0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 133 12 16 52 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentages 9.0% 12.0% 39.1% 39.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.1% 78.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Indian Hills Elementarv School 6002-057 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 63 19 23 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 76 17 17 14 26 1 0 0 0 1 0 02 80 20 16 20 19 1 1 0 3 0 0 03 61 11 13 19 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 64 11 11 20 20 0 1 1 0 0 0 05 50 14 7 -' 11 18 _,.,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,r,. Totals 394 92 87,, 94 Iller 3 2 1 3 1 0 Percentages 23.4% 22.1% 23.9% 28.2% 0.8% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 45.4% 52.0% a--]. 1.3% 1.0% 0.3% Grades 1-5 331 73 64 84 100 3 2 1 3 1 0 Percentages 22.1% 19.3% 25.4% 30.2% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 41.4% 55.6% 1.5% 1.2% 0.3% North Little Rock Public Schools October l, 1997 Lakewood Elementarv School 6002-058 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 26 8 5 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 39 7 10 12 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 39 7 8 13 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 41 11 8 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 36 10 4 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 37 8 8 ~ 11 10 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 II\" Totals 218 51 43 '' 66 58 1v 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentages 23.4% 19.7% 30.3% 26.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 43.1% 56.9% j77-\u0026gt; 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Grades l-5 192 43 38 60 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentages 22.4% 19.8% 31.3% 26.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 42.2% 57.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Lynch Drive Elementary School 6002-060 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 66 9 19 18 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 58 3 8 24 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 73 11 9 26 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 71 13 7 27 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 75 10 12 29 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 60 8 12 ...\\. . 21 19 \"' 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Totals 403 54 67 I\" 145 136,::, 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentages 13.4% 16.6% 36.0% 33.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0% 69.7% 10? 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 337 45 48 127 116 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentages 13.4% 14.2% 37.7% 34.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27.6% 72.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Meadow Park Elementary School 6002-061 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 23 3 8 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 21 4 2 8 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 34 3 7 9 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 40 2 8 14 14 0 0 1 1 0 0 04 34 5 8 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 25 7 2 _o 9 7 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,'!!I, Totals 177 24 35 ~ 60 56 I 0 0 1 1 - 0 0 Percentages 13.6% 19.8% 33.9% 31.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 65.5% (,~\n. 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% Grades 1-5 154 21 27 51 53 0 0 1 1 0 0 Percentages 13.6% 17.5% 33.1% 34.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 31.2% 67.5% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1 997 North Heii hts Elementary School 6002-063 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 72 20 22 10 16 3 0 1 0 0 0 01 90 22 18 18 25 3 4 0 0 0 0 02 71 13 18 24 10 3 3 0 0 0 0 03 75 22 10 22 16 3 2 0 0 0 0 04 81 18 18 18 18 5 4 0 0 0 0 05 84 15 26 .. ..~\n19 17 .. 3 4 0 0 0 0 4V Totals 473 110 112\"' 111 102 \u0026lt;II\" 20 17 1 0 0 0 , Percentages 23.3% 23.7% 23.5% 21.6% 4.2% 3.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 46.9% 45.0% ~7- 7.8% 0.2% 0.0% Grades 1-5 401 90 90 101 86 17 17 0 0 0 0 Percentages 22.4% 22.4% 25.2% 21.4% 4.2% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 44.9% 46.6% 8.5% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October I, 1997 Park Hill Elementary School 6002-064 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 40 10 13 9 7 0 I 0 0 0 0 01 44 10 10 17 6 0 I 0 0 0 0 02 43 9 12 12 9 0 I 0 0 0 0 03 41 14 7 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 40 10 6 13 10 0 0 0 0 0 I 05 37 11 7 ,,q 7 11 _, 0 0 0 0 1 0 ~ Totals 245 64 55 I 71 50 '\" 0 3 0 0 1 1 - Percentages 26.1% 22.4% 29.0% 20.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 48.6% 49.4% ..-/~1-1.2% 0.0% 0.8% Grades 1-5 205 54 42 62 43 0 2 0 0 1 I Percentages 26.3% 20.5% 30.2% 21.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5% 46.8% 51.2% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Pike View Elementary School 6002-065 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 61 12 10 19 18 0 1 1 0 0 0 01 71 16 11 23 18 1 0 1 1 0 0 02 67 14 14 24 14 0 0 0 1 0 0 03 49 14 11 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 42 12 9 8 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 05 46 11 15 .,.i.' 11 8 ,,.,C 1 0 0 0 0 0 ,, Totals 336 79 70 I 93 86 I 2 1 3 2 0 0 ... Percentages 23.5% 20.8% 27.7% 25.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 44.3% 53.3% S37 0.9% 1.5% 0.0% Grades 1-5 275 67 60 74 68 2 0 2 2 0 0 Percentages 24.4% 21.8% 26.9% 24.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 46.2% 51.6% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Redwood Pre-School 6002-067 J-K White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Ami/Ats Grade Totals M F ., M Fm~.. M F M F M F .... J 108 5 6 ,, 52 43. 1 1 0 0 0 0 .., K 27 0 0 14 13 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Totals 135 5 6 II 66 56 lrT 1 1 0 0 0 0 C7 Percentages 3.7% 4.4% 48.9% 41.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.1% 90.4% 107. 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% Grades 1-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentages 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Seventh Street Elementary School 6002-069 K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 90 8 5 39 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 46 6 4 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 70 6 6 24 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 70 10 13 30 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 04 56 15 16 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 48 7 16 J' ~ 13 12 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Totals 380 52 60 n- 131 136,. 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percentages 13.7% 15.8% 34.5% 35.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29.5% 70.3% 707. 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% Grades 1-5 290 44 55 92 98 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percentages 15.2% 19.0% 31.7% 33.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.1% 65.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 TOTAL ELEMENTARY White - Black .n Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F ~ ,7 M F ..,,\" M F M F M F ,,-: Totals 4165 776 767 1 - 1311 1229\" 35 30 7 7 2 1 ~ Percentages 18.6% 18.4% 31.5% 29.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 37.0% 61.0% ~I 7. 1.6% 0.3% 0.1% Grade 1-5 3343 649 617 1027 978 30 27 5 7 2 1 Percentages 19.4% 18.5% 30.7% 29.3% 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 37.9% 60.0% 1.7% 0.4% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Central Sixth Grade School 6002-059 06-06 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 664 152 140 .c i)I 178 185 ,, 3 4 1 0 0 1 ,., Totals 664 152 140\n 178 185~- 3 4 1 0 0 l ., Percentages 22.9% 21.1% 26.8% 27.9% 0.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 44.0% 54.7% .s5r 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 07-08 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 264 73 78 58 50 3 1 0 1 0 0 08 268 84 69 I 56 52 ' ~ 1 2 1 2 0 1 - Totals 532 157 147 }\" 114 10211' 4 3 1 3 0 1 I\" Percentages 29.5% 27.6% 21.4% 19.2% 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% o.6% 0.0% 0.2% 57.1% 40.6% .\u0026gt;/11  1.3% 0.8% 0.2% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 07-08 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 354 69 52 112 115 2 4 0 0 0 0 08 300 54 57 ~89 88 .I j 3 8 0 0 0 1 ,(/ Totals 654 123 109~ 201 203 ., 5 12 0 0 0 1 J w Percentages 18.8% 16.7% 30.7% 31.0% 0.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 35.5% 61.8% t,?-1 2.6% 0.0% 0.2% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Rose City Middle School 6002-077 07-08 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 195 38 34 59 63 1 0 0 0 0 0 08 142 25 25 43 46 1 0 1 1 0 0 09 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 ,cl 2 0 f, 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Totals 347 64 61 1, 107 1110' 2 0 1 1 0 0 ,, Percentages 18.4% 17.6% 30.8% 32.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 36.0% 62.8% (i$7, 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% ' North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 North Little Rock High School-East Campus 6002-075 09-10 White Black Hispanic Asian/PI Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 690 192 150 155 183 5 3 1 1 0 0 10 675 158 127 vt 180 197 6 5 1 0 0 1 -\" Totals 1365 350 277 (,o 335 380 ,  11 8 2 1 0 1 (7 Percentages 25.6% 20.3% 24.5% 27.8% 0.8% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 45.9% 52.4% ~~7 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools October I, 1997 North Little Rock High School-West Campus 6002-076 09-12 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 53 7 1 26 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 114 24 8 47 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 612 164 148 123 164 2 6 2 3 0 0 12 525 144 125 -::\\: 114 124 ,:\n~ 7 5 2 4 0 0 - '3 Totals 1304 339 282 IT 310 340\" 11 11 4 7 0 0~ I Percentages 26.0% 21.6% 23.8% 26.1% 0.8% 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 47.6% 49.8% :\n,\nJ/ o 1.7% 0.8% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 Argenta Academy 6002-076 06-12 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 9 3 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 07 7 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 15 3 1 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 25 8 2 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 48 9 2 21 14 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 35 4 3 15 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 22 3 2 I 9 7 ' 0 1 0 0 0 0 I Totals 161 31 10 'T' 78 38 \"\"' 2 2 0 0 0 0 I Percentages 19.3% 6.2% 48.4% 23.6% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.5% 72.0% 7'\u0026gt;} 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 TOTAL DISTRICT White ,_ Black ,J Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F,11 i ... M F e:,. , M F M F M F .\u0026lt;I) . Totals 9192 1992 1793' 2634 2588' 73 70 16 19 2 5 ,~ Percentages 21.7% 19.5% 28.7% 28.2% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 41.2% 56.8% 67? 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% Grade 1-5 8370 1865 1643 2350 2337 68 67 14 19 2 5 Percentages 22.3% 19.6% 28.1% 27.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 41.9% 56.0% 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 TOTAL SECONDARY White .l\"V Black .. -Y Hispanic Asian/PI Arnl/Als Grade Totals M F ~M M F 'l.l '!\u0026gt;\" M F M F M F ,D Totals 5027 1216 1026\" 1323 1359 38 40 9 12 0 4 Percentages 24.2% 20.4% 26.3% 27.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 44.6% 53.4% -5l7- 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 1997 SUMMARY BY GRADE White Black Hispanic Asian/Pl Aml/Als Grade Totals M F ~ M F.,.( M F M F M F 2 Pre-School 143 5 8 ,, 69 58 \"' 2 1 0 0 0 0 - 3.5% 5.6% 48.3% 40.6% 1.4% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 88.8% ~,. 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% Kindergarten 679 122 142 215 193 3 2 2 0 0 0 18.0% 20.9% 31.7% 28.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38.9% 60.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 01 713 131 122 207 234 7 8 1 2 1 0 19.3% 18.0% 30.5% 34.5% 1.0% 1.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 37.3% 64.9% 2.2% 0.4% 0.1% 02 706 125 122 225 215 9 6 0 4 0 0 17.7% 17.3% 31.9% 30.5% 1.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 35.0% 62.3% 2.1% 0.6% 0.0% 03 662 139 113 231 170 4 2 2 1 0 0 21.0% 17.1% 34.9% 25.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 38.1% 60.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 04 657 133 125 192 194 5 5 2 0 0 1 20.2% 19.0% 29.2% 29.5% 0.8% 0.8% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 39.3% 58.8% 1.5% 0.3% 0.2% 05 599 118 135 170 164 5 6 0 0 1 0 19.7% 22.5% 28.4% 27.4% 0.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 42.2% 55.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.2% 06 679 158 140 184 187 4 4 1 0 0 1 23.3% 20.6% 27.1% 27.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 43.9% 54.6% 1.2% 0.1% 0.1% 07 820 181 164 235 228 6 5 0 1 0 0 22.1% 20.0% 28.7% 27.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 42.1% 56.5% 1.3% 0.1% 0.0% 08 725 166 152 198 187 5 10 2 3 0 2 22.9% 21.0% 27.3% 25.8% 0.7% 1.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 43.9% 53.1% 2.1% 0.7% 0.3% 09 771 207 153 197 202 7 3 1 1 0 I 0 26.8% 19.8% 25.6% 26.2% 0.9% I 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% o.o I 0.0% 46.7% 51.8% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 110 I 841 192 I 138 248 I 248 7 I 6 1 I 0 0 I 1 I I 22.8% I 16.4% 29.5% I 29.5% o.8% I o.7% 0.1% I 0.0% 0.0% I 0.1% 39.2% 59.0% 1.5% 0.1% 0.1% 111 I 648 168 I 152 138 I 177 2 I 6 2 I 3 0 I 0 I I 25.9% I 23.5% 21.3% 127.3% o.3% I o.9% o.3% I o.5% 0.0% I 0.0% 49.4% 48.6% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 112 I 549 147 I 121 125 I 131 7 I 6 2 I 4 0 I 0 I I 26.8% I 23.1% 22.8% I 23.9% 1.3% I 1.1% 0.4% I o.7% 0.0% I 0.0% 49.9% 46.6% 2.4% 1.1% 0.0% I District I 9192 1992 I 1793 26341 2588 73 I 70 16 I 19 21 5 I I 21.7% I 19.5% 28.7% 128.2% 0.8% I 0.8% 0.2% I 0.2% 0.0% I 0.1% 41.2% 56.8% 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% I District I 8370 1865 I 1643 23501 2337 681 67 14 I 19 21 5 !Grades 1-12 I 22.3% I 19.6% 28.1% 127.9% o.8% I o.8% 0.2% I 0.2% 0.0% I 0.1% 41.9% 56.0% 1.6% 0.4% 0.1% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA *60-02-050 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOO GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 52 22 30 R 01 68 29 39 02 78 37 41 mv 21 1997 03 68 31 37 OFFIOCFE 04 71 36 35 DESEGREMGOANTIITOONR ING 05 63 34 29 SCHOOL 400 189 211 TOTALS 47.3% 52.8% GRADES 348 167 181 01-05 48.0% 52.0%  PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-058 OCTOBER 1, 1997 :OUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SC GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 26 13 13 01 39 17 22 02 39 15 24 03 41 19 22 04 36 14 22 05 37 16 21 SCHOOL 218 94 124 TOTALS 43.1% 56.9% GRADES 192 81 111 01-05 42.2% 57.8% LEA #60-02-054 :ouNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL J 35 K 71 01 83 02 58 03 60 04 69 05 59 SCHOOL 435 TOTALS GRADES 329 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 3 32 7 64 13 70 8 50 9 51 8 61 8 51 56 379 12.9% 87.1% 46 283 14.0% 86.0% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-069 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEMENT GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 90 13 77 01 46 10 36 02 70 12 58 03 70 24 46 04 56 31 25 05 48 23 25 SCHOOL 380 113 267 TOTALS 29.7% 70.3% GRADES 290 100 190 01-05 34.5% 65.5% LEA #60-02-060 :OUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 66 01 58 02 73 03 71 04 75 05 60 SCHOOL 403 TOTALS GRADES 337 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 28 38 12 46 20 53 20 51 22 53 20 40 122 281 30.3% 69.7% 94 243 27.9% 72.1% LEA 160-02-061 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 23 01 21 02 34 03 40 04 34 05 25 SCHOOL 177 TOTALS GRADES 154 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 11 12 6 15 10 24 12 28 13 21 9 16 61 116 34.5% 65.5% 50 104 32.5% 67.5% LEA i60-02-050 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 72 01 90 02 71 03 75 04 81 05 84 SCHOOL 473 TOTALS GRADES 401 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTA GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 46 26 47 43 37 34 37 38 45 36 48 36 260 213 55.0% 45.0% 214 187 53.4% 46.6% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-055 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY S GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 44 29 15 01 51 28 23 02 51 24 27 03 39 24 15 04 49 31 18 05 31 20 11 SCHOOL 265 156 109 TOTALS 58.9% 41.1% GRADES 221 127 94 01-05 57.5% 42.5% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-064 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY S GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 40 24 16 01 44 21 23 02 43 22 21 03 41 21 20 04 40 17 23 05 37 19 18 SCHOOL 245 124 121 TOTALS 50.6% 49.4% GRADES 205 100 105 01-05 48.8% 51. 2% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-065 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY S GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 61 24 37 01 71 30 41 02 67 29 38 03 49 25 24 04 42 22 20 05 46 27 19 SCHOOL 336 157 179 TOTALS 46.7% 53.3% GRADES 275 133 142 01-05 48.4% 51. 6% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-053 OCTOBER 1, 1997 :::ouNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCH GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 19 10 9 01 35 17 18 02 20 7 13 03 23 7 16 04 18 6 12 05 25 11 14 06 6 3 3 SCHOOL 146 61 85 TOTALS 41. 8% 58.2% GRADES 127 51 76 01-05 40.2% 59.8% LEA #60-02-056 -:'.OUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL K 25 01 31 02 22 03 24 04 22 05 34 SCHOOL 158 TOTALS GRADES 133 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SC GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 2 23 6 25 4 18 7 17 2 20 9 25 30 128 19.0% 81.0% 28 105 21.1% 78.9% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-057 OCTOBER 1, 1997 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTAR GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL K 63 42 21 01 76 36 40 02 80 41 39 03 61 25 36 04 64 24 40 05 50 21 29 SCHOOL 394 189 205 TOTALS 48.0% 52.0% GRADES 331 147 184 01-05 44.4% 55.6% LEA #60-02-067 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL J 108 K 27 SCHOOL 135 TOTALS GRADES 0 01-05 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: REDWOOD ELEMENTARY SCH GRADE SPAN: K-05 NON-BLACK BLACK 13 95 0 27 13 122 9.6% 90.4% 0 0 .0% .0% ELEMENTARY NON-BLACK BLACK TOTALS ELEM 4165 1625 2540 WITH K 39.0% 61.0% ELEM 3343 1338 2005 01-05 40.0% 60.0% LEA #60-02-076 :ouNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 09 53 10 114 11 612 12 525 SCHOOL 1304 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH GRADE SPAN: 11-12 NON-BLACK BLACK 10 43 32 82 325 287 287 238 654 650 50.2% 49.8% LEA #60-02-075 2OUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 09 10 690 675 SCHOOL 1365 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH GRADE SPAN: 09-10 NON-BLACK 352 298 650 47.6% BLACK 338 377 715 52.4% PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL LEA #60-02-076 OCTOBER 1, 1997 :::OUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ARGENTA ACADEMY GRADE SPAN: 7-12 NON-BLACK BLACK GRADE TOTAL 06 9 4 5 07 7 1 6 08 15 4 11 09 25 10 15 10 48 13 35 11 35 7 28 12 22 6 16 SCHOOL 161 45 116 TOTALS 28.0% 72.0% LEA #60-02-072 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 354 08 300 SCHOOL 654 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOO GRADE SPAN: 07-08 NON-BLACK 127 123 250 38.2% BLACK 227 177 404 61. 8% LEA #60-02-070 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 264 08 268 SCHOOL 532 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 NON-BLACK 156 160 316 59.4% BLACK 108 108 216 40.6% LEA #60-02-077 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 07 195 08 142 09 3 10 4 11 1 12 2 SCHOOL 347 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOO GRADE SPAN: 07-08 NON-BLACK BLACK 73 122 53 89 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 2 129 218 37.2% 62.8% LEA #60-02-059 COUNTY: PULASKI GRADE TOTAL 06 664 SCHOOL 664 TOTALS PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1997 DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: CENTRAL 6TH GRADE CENT NON-BLACK 301 301 45.3% BLACK 363 363 54.7% GRADE SPAN: 06 SECONDARY TOTALS SEC 5027 NON-BLACK 2345 46.6% BLACK 2682 53.4% DISTRICT NON-BLACK BLACK TOTALS 9192 3970 5222 43.2% 56.8% W/0 8370 3683 4687 GR K\u0026amp;J 44.0% 56.0% NCOIB) T IBII LIITTILJEJ E(O)CIBC:1 F1IJIB3CILCI IC CIB (I0 )(0)I L~ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET December 5, 1997 Memo To: Mellisa Guiden, Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: School Building Capacities Enclosed is a copy of North Little Rock School District Building Capacities Report. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK. AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 STEP 1- 1997-98 School Building Capacity REDWOOD (without portable) CURRENT USE ONL Y--ACTUAL CAPACITY NOT CALCULATED Identify each room by use and capacity. 6 Pre K 2 K 1 Special X18=108 X 20 = 40 X 2 = 2 I.  STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity I. - AMBOY ELEMENTARY (with double portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 K 10 1-3, 3/4 6 4-5 4 Special 1 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 230 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 32 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 495 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 (Computer room not included in calculations) = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 489 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 440 CURRENT CAPACITY - 440 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity AMBOY ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 9 6 4 K 1, 3 /4 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 207 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 32 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 449 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 (Computer room not included in calculations) = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 443 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 399 CURRENT CAPACITY - 399 STEP.1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Building Capacity BELWOOD ELEMENTARY (with portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 1 4 2 5 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 20 X23 = 92 X 25 = 50 X 8 =40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 202 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 1997-98 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 196 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 176 CURRENT CAPACITY= 176 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity BELWOOD ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 1 1 1 5 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X20 = 20 X 23 = 23 X 25 = 25 X 8 =40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 108 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1 02 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 92 CURRENT CAPACITY= 92 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Building Capacity BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 9 6 6 3 K 1-3 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 80 X 23 = 207 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 48 X 23 = 69 1997-98 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 554 (Pre-School (2 rooms) and computer lab not included in calculations.) Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 548 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 493 CURRENT CAPACITY - 493 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY (with double portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 6 3 4 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 138 X 25 = 75 X 8 = 32 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 305 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 299 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 269 CURRENT CAPACITY - 269 ------ ----- STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades K-5 School Buildlng Capacity CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY (without portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 5 3 3 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 115 X 25 = 75 X 8 = 24 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 27 4 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 268 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 241 CURRENT CAPACITY - 241 1997-98 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY (without portable) STEP 1- Identify each room by use and capacity. I I 2 K X20 = 40 I 3 1-3,3/4 X23= 69 2 4-5 X25 = 50 I 6 Special X 8= 48 I 2 Special X23 = 46 I I STEP 2- Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 253 I STEP 3- Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 I (Computer lab not counted) I I STEP 4- Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical I Capacity\" = 247 I STEP 5- Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 222 I I CURRENT CAPACITY - 222 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity IND/AN HILLS ELEMENTARY (without portable) STEP 1- Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 K X20= 60 I 11 1-3 X 23 = 253 I 4 4-5 X 25 = 100 I 1 Ortho/Special X23 = 23 I 7 Special/Othro X 8= 56 I STEP 2- Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 492 I I STEP 3- Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 I I STEP 4- Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical I Capacity\" = 486 I STEP 5- Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 437 I I CURRENT CAPACITY - 437 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 5 3 5 1 K 1-3 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 40 X 23 = 115 X 25 = 75 X 8 = 40 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 293 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 287 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 258 CURRENT CAPACITY - 258 -------- STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify eag_h room by use and capacity. 4 9 6 7 4 K, K-1 1, 2, 3, (3,4) 4, 5 Special Ed Special X 20 = 80 X23 = 207 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 56 X23 = 92 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 585 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included in calculations.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 579 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 521 CURRENT CAPACITY - 521 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY (with portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 4 2 6 K, K-1 1-3,3/4 4-5 Resource X 20 = 40 X 23 = 92 X 25 = 50 X 8 = 48 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 230 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 224 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\"= 202 CURRENT CAPACITY - 202 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY (without portable) STEP 1- Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 4 2 5 K, K-1 1-3,3/4 4-5 Resourc:e X20 = 40 X 23 = 92 X 25 = 50 X 8 = 40 STEP 2- Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 222 STEP 3- Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 STEP 4- Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 216 STEP 5- Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 194 CURRENT CAPACITY - 194 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY (with portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 11 6 2 6 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special Resource X 20 = 80 X 23 = 253 X 25 = 150 X 23 = 46 X 8 = 48 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 577 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 571 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\"= 514 CURRENT CAPACITY= 514 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY (without portables) Identify each room by use and capacity. 4 K, K-1 10 1-3, 3/4 6 4-5 5 Resource X 20 = 80 X 23 = 230 X 25 = 150 X 8 = 40 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 500 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 494 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 445 CURRENT CAPACITY= 445 I ,\u0026amp;./ f,. w STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity PARK HILL ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 2 6 3 5 1 K, K-1 1-3, 3/4 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 40 X 23 = 138 X 25= 75 X 8 = 40 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 316 Special Adjustments - Speech -6= -6 (Computer lab not included.) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 310 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 279 CURRENT CAPACITY - 279 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 3 8 4 5 1 K 1-3 4-5 Special Special X 20 = 60 X 23 = 184 X 25 = 100 X 8 = 40 X 23 = 23 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 407 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 401 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 361 CURRENT CAPACITY - 361 --------------------------- STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grades K-5 School Building Capacity SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 5 K X 20 = 100 8 1-3 X 23 = 184 4 4-5 X 25 = 100 6 Special X 8 = 48 2 Special X23 = 46 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 478 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 (Computer lab not included also 4 Speciality classrooms not counted) Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 472 Multiply by 90% to determine \"Capacity\" = 425 CURRENT CAPACITY - 425 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grade 6 School Building Capacity POPLAR STREET MIDDLE (with portables) Identify each room by use and capacity - Sixth grade rooms. 37 rooms-A102, A108, A109, A111, A112, G1, G2, P1, P2, P3, P4, 101, 103, 105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,200,201,202,203,204, 2058, 207,208,209,210,211,212,213, 214@25 = 925 8-Resource-A 110, A 104A, A 1048, PS, 102, 102A, 205A, 205C @ 8=64 (Not counted 115) Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 989 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 983 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 836 CURRENT CAPACITY - 836 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grade 6 School Building Capacity POPLAR STREET MIDDLE (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity - Sixth grade rooms. 33 rooms-A102, A108, A109, A111, A112, G1, G2, 101,103,105,106,107,108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 2058, 207, 208, 209, 210,211,212,213, 214@25 = 825 7-Resource-A110, A104A, A1048, 102, 102A, 205A, 205C@8=56 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 881 Special Adjustments - Speech -6 = -6 Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 875 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 7 44 CURRENT CAPACITY - 7 44 ... .I/ ,~ ' '1 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD MIDDLE (with portable) STEP 1 - Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 28 regular rooms - Gym, Gym, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109,110,111,202,203,204,206,207,209,210,211,212,213,214 215, Choir, 405, Band @ 25 = 700 3 Special Education rooms - 106, 201, 205 @ 15 = 45 Rooms 200A, 2008, 208, 215 @ 8 = 24 Rooms 101 and Portable SAC are used for pull out programs not considered - 0 STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 769 STEP 3- Special Adjustments - Room 201 1/2 (-12), Choir 1/2 (-13), 405 only (-21) = -46 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 723 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 615 CURRENT CAPACITY - 615 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity LAKEWOOD MIDDLE (without portable) STEP 1 - Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 27 regular rooms - Gym, Gym, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110,111,202,203,204,206,207,209,210,211,212,213,214,215, Choir, 405, Band @ 25 = 675 3 Special Education rooms - 106, 201, 205 @ 15 = 45 Rooms 200A, 2008, 208@ 8 = 24 Rooms 101 and 107 are used for pull out programs not considered - O STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 7 44 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments - Room 201 1/2 (-12), Choir 1/2 (-13), 405 only (-21) = -46 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 698 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 593 CURRENT CAPACITY - 593 STEP 1 - 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity RIDGEROAD MIDDLE (with portables) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, oi: curriculum. 28 regular rooms - FA 1, F A2., Gym 1, Gym 2, G6, G8, P4, 103, 122, 123,124,125,126,127,129,130,132,134,136,221,222,223,224, 226, 227, 229, P1 @25 = 700 11 Special Education room - C1, G3, G4,G5, L 1, 104, 128, P3, 225, 228, 231 @ 8 = 88 Rooms 102 (computer lab), Speech and P2 (SAC) are used for pull out programs not considered. = O STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 788 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments -49 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 739 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\"= 628 CURRENT CAPACITY - 628 ---------- 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity RIDGEROAD MIDDLE (without portable) STEP 1 - Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 26 regular rooms - FA1, FA2, Gym 1, Gym 2, G6, GS, 103, 121, 122, 123, 124,125,126,127,129,130,132,134,136,221,222,223,224,226, 227, 229, @ 25 = 650 10 Special Education r.ooms - C1, G3, G4,G5, L 1,104,128,225,228,231 @8 = 80 Rooms 102 (computer lab) and Speech are used for pull out programs not considered. = O STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 730 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments -49 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\"= 681 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 579 CURRENT CAPACITY - 579 STEP 1- 1997-98 Grades 7-8 School Building Capacity ROSE CITY MIDDLE ( without portable) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 19regularrooms-105, S1, S2, S3, 106,109,110,111,112,115, 116, Art, HE1, HE2, Gym 1, Gym 2, FA, THE, LAB@ 25 = 475 11 Special Education rooms - 100,102, 103, 104, 108, 114, 113, 117, 118,119, Shop@8 = 88 Rooms 101, 107 are used for pull out programs not considered = O STEP 2 - Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\"= 563 STEP 3 - Special Adjustments -Room 116 1/2 (-12), HE2 1/2 (-13) = -25 STEP 4 - Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 538 STEP 5 - Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 457 CURRENT CAPACITY -457 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- 1997-98 Grade 7 -12 School Building Capacity ARGENTA ACADEMY (without portable) Identify each room by use and capacity. 16 X 8 = 128 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 128 Special Adjustments - Program still evolving. Adaptable. Does not count seats unless full time assignment possible. Subtract Step 3 from Step 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 128 Multiply by 100% to determine \"Capacity\" = 128 CURRENT CAPACITY - 128 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades 9-10 School Building Capacity NLRHS - EAST CAMPUS (with portable) (112 for Jr. High) 1997-98 Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 60 regular rooms - Stage, 501, 502, 504, 5058, 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109,110,111,112,113,115,116,117,118,200,202,204,205, 206,207,208,209,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219, 220,221,222,223,224,225,301,302,303,304,305,306,401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 503, Gym 1, Gym 2, Gym 3, Gym 4, Gym 5, LR1, 60@25 = 1500 Reading rooms - P1, 203 @ 15 = 30 9 Special Education rooms -102A, 1028, 102C, 1020, 114A, 1148, LR, 210, 201@ 8 = 72 Room 104, P2, and P3 is used for pull out programs not considered = 0 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 1602 Special Adjustments - 202 (-8), 501 (-12) = -20 Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1597 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1357 CURRENT CAPACITY - 1357 (Divide by 2 for 9th grade) 678 10th grade - Multiply STEP 4 by 80% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1278 (Divide by 2 for 10th grade) 639 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades 9-10 School Building Capacity 1997-98 NLRHS - EAST CAMPUS (without portable) (112 for Jr. High) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 58 regular rooms - Stage, 501, 502, 504, 5058, 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109,110,111,112,113,115,116,117,118,200,201, 205,206,207, 208,209,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219, 220,221,222,223,224,225,301,302,303,304,305,306,401, 402, 403, 405, 406, 503, Gym 1, Gym 2, Gym 3, Gym 4, Gym 5 @ 25 = 1450 Reading rooms - 203 @ 15 = 15 9 Special Education rooms - LR, 102A, 1028, 102C, 102D, 114A, 1148, 201, 210@8 = 72 Room 104 is used for pull out programs not considered = 0 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 1537 Special Adjustments - 202 (-8), 501 (-12) = -20 Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1517 Multiply by 85% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1289 CURRENT CAPACITY -1289 (Divide by 2 for 9th grade) 644 10th grade - Multiply STEP 4 by 80% to determine \"Capacity\"= 1214 (Divide by 2 for 10th grade) 607 STEP 1- STEP 2- STEP 3- STEP 4- STEP 5- Grades 11-12 School Building Capacity 1997-98 NLRHS - WEST CAMPUS (without portable) Identify each room housing daily scheduled classes and its capacity by size, law, or curriculum. 50, 54, 55, 56,101,109,111,112,113,114,115,117,118,200,201,202,203, 204,205A, 206,210, 212,213A, 214,217,218,222,302,304, 305A, 306, 308,311,403,404,406,407,408,409,410,413,414,416,417,510, 511, 512, G1, G2, G3, 600, 601, 603, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, stage---- 60 X 25 = 1500 21, 22, 23----3 X 15 = 45 207, 412----2 X 10 = 20 208,209,215,216,215,219,220,400,401,419,611, G4----12 X 8 = 96 602---1 X 5 = 5 11 2--- 1 X 2 = 2 Add capacities for \"Total Physical Capacity\" = 1668 Special Adjustments - none Subtract STEP 3 from STEP 2 to determine \"Adjusted Physical Capacity\" = 1668 Multiply by 80% to determine \"Capacity\" = 1334 CURRENT CAPACITY - 1334 ----- NOV-21-F9R7I 1 0:13A M PULASCKOSI CHOOLS Ft-'lNXO 4. 900483 P. 02 - a: - -.- . , OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLLMENTR EPORT ., (Revised 10-28-97) % w-mE FVC':C HISHIN!C NIDN' P. :fSLAi'.'D J:M.ihl\"'ES\u0026lt;J}{) SCHOOL EJiS GIHS IDS Grn.S KJJS GIRS B:lIS GIRE KhS GIH.S 1DrAL Adkins 88 '\",t 7 6 70 ,11 4 7 l 1 d' 283 -f' Arnold Drive 139 ~'\\]59 41 i6 44 2 5 l \u0026lt;l 391 ~ Baker 124 Pf26 35 (,~ 30 l I 316 ~Bates 1f'I ~'?,132 -'I 466 b4 111 88 131 2 2 Bayou Meta 289 ~?96 7 '\"' 9 6 3 l 2 l 13 614 3 Cato 211 .,/Or 9 s 62 11~ 54 3: 2 2 1 529 ~d\" Clinton i\"!f70 Ji~ ~I 174 183 199 9 4 3 4 1 74 7 ~I College Station 78 15179 73 ,~~ 51 2 l 1 4 t 289 ~3 Crystal Hill 202 16179 179 Jl,~186 l .1 .. 1 .3 749 ! ~ Dupree 137 ) I.1le2\u0026gt;9 so '11 41 3 2 4 3 1 J3 370 l~-5 Fuller Elem. 68 1~4 122 ,~\\1s 2 2 .Jj I 293 ~ Harris 64 ,~, 57 68 ,~1 79 4 3 l ~ 276  SB J'ville Elem. .,o, ~~, 147 l Ir ~ 167 143 126 ~ 4 l 3 2 592 Landmark 1~\n).- ~ ol:\\ I -131 121 109 100 l 4 6 2 I\u0026gt; 15 Lawson ~lo3 ..110 0 138 20 20 281 t4 Oak Grove Elem. li6 3~161 42 40 48 2 1 l 1 431 ~' Oakbrooke 190 ~!56 57 '\" 54 2 2 2 I l 3 l ,, 468 ~ Pine Forest 317.0 q5. ,1 i 208 52 43 7 3 4 3 490 19 Pinewood ~1q J(p\u0026lt; i ,~ 139 140 80 89 3 1 2 4 1 l 460 ~ Robinson Elem. 160 ~ 10\"6 148 43 \"\" 51 l I 403 ~3 (/l 34 ~p 23 0 I Scott 33 27 1171(3 Sherwood 151\n/.~3 132 57 CJ'l 40 1 I 381~ Sylvan Hills Elem. 167 ~f{l 130 59 ,,~ 53 2 1 l 1 41311 Taylor 132 ~129 89 ,5~ 66 l I 417.3'7 Tolleson 188 3.1\\1 159 65 ,~o 55 3 11 5 4 3 1 ~, 494~/ 1,o~~ 3.~~\\ ,i~ TOTAL ELEM. 13,645 3,383 1,864 1,757 55 47 23 33 17 B 10,832~3 NOV-21-F9R7I 1 0:1 3 AM PULASCKOSI CHOOLS FAXN O4, 900483 P. 01  '4 ... ,, OCTOBER 1, 1997ENROLLMENT REPORT WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/ P. rsu,Nr AM. IND.' ESKIM) SCHOOL OOYS GIRLS BOYS GTRLS OOYS GIRJ.,:::\n1:!0Y!::i GIRLS BOYS c..\n1RU:i ~ !,'l ~193 13 Fuller Jr. High 282 185 188 4 4 4 l J'ville Jr, High ~~is #01 1! 245 146 161 6 3 4 2 J'ville Middle 233 ..,r, 244 127 ~130 1 2 2 1 1 l J'ville High 353 !~9- ~,\u0026gt;I 17 L. :) 167 147 3 4 6 4 Mills High ~~I ~77 1 215 176 189 2 l 5 l North Pulaski ~ 1 99\n,JJCt92 ,~ 302 114 2 7 2 1 1 l 1,,1 ,~., Northwood ~ 344 fl 73 92 97 4 6 9 3 2 l Oak Grove \u0026lt;J.I ~ioi I 1!\u0026gt; 355 306 99 105 5 1 2 6 1 Rob. Jr, High 180 ~f43 67 ,~lt 69 Rob, High 145 ~is3 79 ,~\"\u0026gt; 43 l 1 ~ l S. Hills Jr. High (P.f\n6L9 ~ 324 282 128 2 ~ l l S. Hills High ~~4 _\n)-II ,, 299 110 101 5 3 2 1 TOTAL SEC, l,,I05 ~-tt5o (~1 3,277 2 828 1,506 l 444 30 39 29 26 5 8 DIST. TOTAL 6,922 6,211 3,370 3,201 85.,- 86....- 52....- ~~9 22 ..... 15.....- - pa (NOTE: Students atter.ding the Alternative Learning Center at Scott are included in the totals of their home school.) ------------- - 2 - q ! TO!'ALI 861 775 I 741 ~ 979 760 821 831 ~ ~ ~ X, 880\" a ol ~'l 459~ 423 871 301 785 oli l 1 q:\ni ~ 20,024 ~~1 I FAXN O.4 900483 P. 01 OCTOBER ('lfff: '3tud1:: ~ ,:,r:i1:1g thio Alt1,:rnc,:1ve Lear, 1:1~:.r C 0 n .. e.:- a_ S.:. 1nc',,d!\" :r. r:e tot ls of '-h.\u0026lt;!ll' :.orr1e s,~t:ci..,.l,) F~XN O,4 900483 P. 02 ij SCHOOL I /--11.lkl'~S 1t----- ! ArnrJlo Drive 't-= I Rr1ker OCT-22-W97E 0D3 :42P M PULASCKOIU NSTCYH OOLS .. ' ' . FAXN O5. 014900483 DATE: TO: FROM: .,, j ' ... Pulaski County Special School District 925 E. Dixon Road/ P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 501-490-2000 FAX 490-0483 October 22, 1997 Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Little Rock Free Press Jacksonville Patriot North Pulaski Leader Sherwood Voice Norlh Little Rock Times Maumelle Monitor Drop Zone Arkansas Times Arkansas State Press KAAK-TV-Channel 4 KATV-TV-Channel 7 KKYK-TV-Channel 22 KLRT-TV~Channel 16 KTHV-TV-Channel 11 KARN Radio KSYG Radio Associated Press J. R. Huie, Arkansas PubHc School Week Jim Burgett, Board of Education Arlyne Cherven, Board of Education Mildred Tatum, Board of Education Mack McAlister, Board of Education Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joy Springer, Walker Law Firm, Joshua lntervenors PACT Ron Standridge, Information Services Specialist 490-2000 NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 (including transmittal page) P. 01/03 OCT-22-W97E 0D3 :43P M PULASCKOIU NSTCYH OOLS FAXt~ O5. 014900483 P. 02/C3 OCTOBER 1, 199i ENROLLC\"IENT REPORT (10/22/97) SCHOOL \\AJ-ITIE BI.A._'1( HI...Sffi'ITC !:BPN/ P. Th'IA\\D A\"'!.I NY ES\\..u'\"\"-0 8JtS GIH\"B EIJx'S GIRT:.S 8JYS GL.\nLS ID1S GIRLS , .3JyS C-JRS R,T\nl.L ii ll Adkins 88 76 70 4i 1 l 283 :1 Arnold Drive 139 159 41 44 2 5 1 391 I Baker ' 124 126 35 30 1 316 '. Bates I 111 88 J.31 132 2 2 4 6 6 I I Bayou Meta 289 296 7 9 6 3 1 2 l 614 1 Cato 211 195 62 54 :, 3 2 2 529 II Clinton 174 170 183 199 9 4 3 4 l 74 7 I! .\\ College Station 78 79 73 51 2 l 1 4 289 ii Crystal Hill 201 179 179 186 l l 1 748 :i Dupree 137 129 50 41 3 2 4 3 l 3 70 1! Fuller Elem. 68 83 122 115 2 2 3 0 ~ Iii  ,t. ,1 I Harris 641 57 68 79 4 3 l ? - - 11 - IO :I J'ville Elem. I 11 147 160 142 126 l 4 l 3 2 1 s s 7 !I I ,, I I ,I Lar.dmark 131 121 109 100 j_ 462 Ii I Lawson 138 103 20 20 I I 2 s 1 Ii Oak Grove Elem. 11 176 161 42 48 2 1 1 431 i! Oakbrooke 190 156 57 54 2 2 2 l 3 1 466 ii Ptne Forest 208 170 52 43 7 3 4 3 490 !I i' Pinewood 139 140 80 89 3 l 2 4 l l 4 60 il I Robinson Elem. 160 148 43 51 l 403 II Scott ,, 33 34 27 23 117 11 Sherwood l. 51 132 57 40, 1 I 381 Sylvan Hills Elem. 167 130 59 :-)~\" .11 2 l l 413 I Taylor I 132 129 88 66 1 416 Tolleson 188 159 65 55 3 11 5 4 3 1 494 TOTAL ELEM. 3,644 3,380 1,862 1,753 55 47 23 33 l7 8 10,824 OCT-22-W97E 0D3 :44P M PULASCKOIU NSTCYH OOLS FAXN O5. 014900483 P. 03/03 OCTOBER 1, 1997 ENROLLMENT REPORT w\"HITE BLACK HISPA:.JIC 1\\SIAN/ P. ISLANT' AM. IND. / ESKIMO..,_ SCHOOL .t:'OYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLS BOYS GIRLti tlOY~ GIRLS EOYS I GlRLti Fuller Jr. High 282 185 186 193 4 4 4 1 J'ville Jr. High 245 208 146 161 6 3 4 2 J'vifle Middle 230 244 123 130 2 2 l l 1 J'ville High 350 291 167 147 3 4 6 4 Mills High 215 176  188 177 2 1 5 l ~Jorth Pulaski 301 299 114 92 2 7 2 l 1 1 Northwood 346 276 90 97 4 6 9 3 2 l Oak Grove 355 306 99 105 5 1 2 6 l Rob. Jr. High _180 140 66 69 Rob. High 144 153 78 43 1 l 1 S. Hills Jr. High 323 283 128 129 2 4 1 1 I S. Hills High 299 264 llO 101 5 3 2 l TOTAL SEC. 3,272 2,825 1,495 1,444 30 39 29 26 5 8 DIST. TOTAL 6,916 6,205 3,357 3,199 85 86 52 30 22 16 (NOTE: Students attending the Alternative Learning Center at Scott are included in the totals of their home school.) - 2 - TOfAL 859 775 734 97? 765 820 834 880 455 421 873 785 C'l\n7\u0026lt; 19,997  ( ,,\u0026gt;.. ..,.- ,, ,_ LEJ\\,tt +----- -+ Enrull Fl.If- IL_ H-IRC!LLMENT f:.'l SCl--10iJL i=\"Of\n:ti - SCHUCiL CHO ICE DY CHG ICE -- ADE FormU Fin 09-00-(HO R/5'2 Law 20 - U_s_ C 1221F-l US DepRrtment a~ Educ~tion F APD6 FU92 +- --------- --- ----- --- ------------ ----------------------------------------------+NUMB ER iASIAN/P(,C. 1Ai1 !NOIAr~ i of' i iHSFi,rHC ! ifISr-'/1i\\ilC j HISPANIC [ ISLANDER l1-iLASr\":lir~ !CLASSES I. - -- ------------- ---------------------------------------------- f----- i Bogs fGir}s18 oysJAirl519o y s i Gi r} ~ I Bo~ Si Gi r] S l Boys f Girl~ f t --- ------- ---- ---- ------- ---- ---- ---------- -----------------------+---- - ---- ----- --------------- - ----+ r ., L I ANMUAI. SC:IIOOL REPOHT :! ,~ LEl\\11 : 60030GIQ - P\\Jf' IL ENHDLLMFNT n-: ~.c, ICJOL nmM   Uc tn h Pr 1, - SCIIUUL CHOICE: IJY CHOICE - J?97 LD = g . Count'l : PUU\\SIU .~ j~ 'f Scltool . PIIU\\SlO COUNTY :,-~rade Sp\n,n ... __ _ ___ _ __\n I li- 1 Iv: Ii \u0026lt;  :1- fl dtr-1l o/--  j, _ _  .-1'1DE :orrnlL Fi.n_ 09_-00=010.JU.92- ____ _ La~ 20 - U.S. C 122lE-l ---------- -----------. - ----- IJS Department of E\u0026lt;.lu~\n,tion _FAP06 R/9\nl ___ __ ___ -- _ --- ., -- - - - -- -- ---- --- ------- ----- - ---- ---- -- ----- -- ---- - -----+NUMBER I l~HITE NOT I IlLACI\\ NOT I ___ , .i-ll SPA~HC i  .Hl~PAr~rc_ I ill SPAN [:.,_..J i.SLAl~DER... JI\\LASKAN--I..CL..SSES- - - ------7-- --- ---- Grade + ------------------------------------------------------ -+-- -- Tot~ l IBo~srGirlslBoyslGiris!Do~slGarlslfio~slGirlslBu~slGirlsl IASiAN/PAC. JAM INDIAN I oF - _+-._ -+ ___ t--------------- ------. --- . -- - - - - -. ----- ---=c. - -- - -=-,.. --=--- --------------------- i=:nrol l. ii-I 181 I ol 41 4! JI l I l I I I 1 +----+ 1--------------------------------- - ci :z: :x: \u0026lt;I: LL. en .....I 0 C) C=\u0026gt; en C) \u0026lt;..:\u0026gt; :::,.c: en \u0026lt;I: .....I ::::\u0026gt; 0.... :E: 0.... (Y) \"1\" ,..., = 0:: LL. rcn I -i ....- ~ 0J I \u0026gt; C) :z: 0 -  - f\nUtUDL t:flU IC 1-: HV c,1u1c1=: -  I.EAi! oouao,e ~ f,Vl:.' f o,mft r i\" or1-ou () 10 fl/92 a, Countu L.aw 20 - U.5.C J?21F-1 == ~ I S~hool us Dep\u0026lt;1rtment r,f E:dut:,.tion .-, tirade Sp\n,n ._(!Q.,, FAf'D6 IU92 I- . :::_I - CL J. +------------------------------------------------------+NUMBER I I WHITE NOTI 0LACI~ NOTI f ASl\n\\N/f'AC. 1AM INDIAN I Df : I IIISPANIC I HISP/\\NlC I 1-!lSF'hNlC ' . ISLANDER IALASl'.AN lCLASSES Gr\n,de -+--------------------------------------------------------+---- ~ Total 1Boys1Girls1Bo~~Girls1Bo~s1Gi~1sl0o~~Girlsi0a~sGirlsl -  Pre-~i~di,r!la-rten Enrol l ...+,.- - --+ +---- ---- -- - -- -- ------ -- ----- ----- -- -- -- -- -- ---------- --+- -- - 721 ! 12t 21 I In 2.9_1 11 I I I I 1 I 4. 0 \"' +----+ 1------------------- ---------- ------ -------- e-\n-, ,. ' - 9'?,\n1\nY \u0026lt;:0 == e'' 1 == I CD = ci I :z: -- :x: \u0026lt;J: 4 LL. t  U) --l C\u0026gt; C\u0026gt; 4 :r C\u0026gt; U) C\u0026gt; t C\u0026gt; -~ { U) \u0026lt;J: --l - :=, CL (. -- ::c o.. (i N =-- \u0026lt;=:0  -n::: LL.  r--- CD I -  N I \u0026gt; 0 :z:  ( -- -- -- -- - - --  ./ LEA# flN~IUAL SCHOOL RE.PORT 6003002 PU~JL ENttOLLMENT UY SCHOUL tUNM - Uc~ubP1 1, ,~,. SCHOIJL CHOICE Il\"\u0026gt;' CHOICE - AOE Formtt Fin 09-00-010 R/92 0.:? -\n-~-_\n:~cc\n:..~:..n:..:o...c!c..1'--'------~~-.+-E\u0026lt;E+-+--4-~+-+-----------\"\"~'-'::..:w:..D......=c\nc::'-a-~-t\"\"'~'-'-~!/ o !~ ~! ~~--c-\"!-,-=:o-t:---n. -------------------------------------1  , Grade Span FAPD6 R /9-\n:!. +------------------------------------ ________ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_+_~~IU~M.B~~E=R~--------------------I I ~J~UTE NOi I ULhCI-'. NOTI I ASIAN/PAC. IA~l INOJAN I o~   I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I HISPANIC I ISLANDEH I ALASI-IAN JCLA5SES qr.a cJe --- ------ - -- ------~----- -------------_-_--:-:,..-,..-----=-----_----_,.-._.--__--_-+__-_ -_--------------------------l Total IOoyslGirlslOn~s1Glrlslllo~slCirl~IDo~s1Girls1BoyslGirlsl +---+ +------ --- ------ ----------- --------------~-------------+--- P_r~e---\"~i_n_d_e_r-~g~a..= _nr~ t__ E_n~r_D_l~l-_1 5~3~1 1_ _ 1_2~1_ _ t 2 I 11 I 17 i 1 I +----I-- 1 - -- -- -------------------- ---- --- ----------- -------------- ---\" :\n,~\ni I ----------- -------------\u0026lt; .. cry co == == = c:5 :z: :x: \u0026lt;C LL U) -.I 0 0 = 0 U) 0 0 ::,c U) \u0026lt;C -.I = 0... :.:= 0... = cry = a:: LL r-= I N I \u0026gt; 0 :z:   6003012 Count Sctiool Grade Span ~  ,, 1 L L,.1\\.1.JLL.J 1L1.J ~ U , :Jt.HUUI_ ! UHM - Uc t ob e 1 l ~ 199 / SCHOOL CHOICE IlY CHOlCE - Ant: Forn,rt Fin 09-00-010 R/92 LdU! 20 - U S. C l2~I:-1 US Oepart.ment of Edu~c~a:-:\nt-,~.o-=-n------------------------------------FAPD6 R/92 +--- _________________________________ ---------------+~~u_MBER ____ _ H-------------------------,:--1:--:~7-cHITE NUfl l.lLACI'. NflTJ IASIAN/PAC. 1AM IN0II\\N I of ------------- 1 HIGPANIC I HISf'ANlt. I HI~,PANIC I IGLI\\N0ER IALASJ.\u0026lt;.AN !CLASSES \" ~ ,, ,\", ,. ,, :...., ,, i)  \" ~r: ., Grade Total +----+ +-. --------- - ---- ------------------ -- ------------------+---- 19o ~~I G i Pl 1B ay I Girls I Doy s I Girls! Boy ~s~l~C~li~-,s-~. ,~O~u-~~-.~~--or~~l-.s~~I--------------------------~ -~- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- -- ---------- - -- --- ---- ----- ---- -- --+- -- - Pre-Ki!_!! erg a r_t_.,_n_ _ E_n_r_o_l_l_*___f 3 _6 _1___ _.'.!J_ __ 7_1_ _! 3 r l 2 I I I_ ___ I _ 1 __ r 2. _ g__ ________ _ I------------ --- ---- --- ------ - -------- ---- ------ - - 1\\ a~ o K Gt Gr Gr Gr. = 0.. -.:::I\" (Y) = ~ LL. r-- CD I ~ I \u0026gt; 0 :z: /\\NtJUIIL SCHOOL HEPDRT LEA# Count!J 6003028 School Grade Span PUP l L ENflfJLLMFN ,- ltY SCI IOUL. ruHM - Oct nt, i.1 l, l 'I'} T rn:HCJDL CHOfCE UY CHOICC - ADE form Fin 09-00-010 R/92 Law 20 - U.S. C 1221-l US Department of Education FAPD6 l\u0026lt;/92 \"-4----------------1------------+_-_-_-_-_----------------------------------------------- ----+NUMUER I ~!HITE NTI DLACI', N  l l H1'.\nIAN/PAC. 11\"\\M INDI,,N I ~F-----------------------1 1 HISPANIC I HISPANIC J HISPANIC I ISLANDER !ALASKAN !CLASSES Grade +-----------------------------------------------:::--------,...-::-:-----:---_+:_-_-_-_- ____________________ ---Total IBoyslGirls!Oo~slGirlslOoyslGirlslBoyslGirlslDouslGirlsl +-- -- + +- --- ----- -------- - -- --- ------ ---- --- ---- - ----- - - -- -- --~---- ,...._. __ P_r~e~-_~\" Kn d erg a r_t,,__:.e.::_lc .. ...cE=-n:..:.:..r-=o:...:)____,1_, :_r_,.\n___,.:...r.~:.'-1-'4-'--''l7'-~--1\"\".-.2,_0Il 71 10 I I I l t I I 4. 0  ... ,. .., \" - G G1 H., Pe lax II +------.. r ----------------- --- -------- ------------------------------+ Cho\nrP-lHf 1 ~~ i7 6 - \u0026gt;1.7. DnJ/ 1/ 97 ~~~bs ~ 7671 Co. Phone~ -r 0 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 925 EAST DlxoN ROAD LrITLER OCKA, RKANSAS 72206 (501) 490-2000 Date: Time: To: .. From: Number of Pages (including cover sheet): ---=2r---~--- Message \\. Posr OmCE Box 8601 Lmu: ROCK, AR.KANSAS 72216 FAX (501) 490-0483 -D.E . C.-.0 3-W97E 0D2 :47P M PULASCKOIS CHOOLS FAXN O.4 900483 P. 02 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 1 a, 1 997 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr-./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL\u0026amp; Fuller . Jackso-nville North Jacksonvme South Northwood Robinson (.2-rooms devlded) Scott (Alternative Sch.) Sylvan Hills .EI..EMENTARV SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan HIiis Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 '780 900 93S 506 998 ~.OOL CAPACITY 945 BOO BOO 964 486 12S 925 SCHOOL CAPACl'l'V 370 420 330 768 660 576 833 340 820 465 526 S25 785 SGS 325 476 500 5S6 523 450 280 460 456 4S0 S70 PCSSD Ten Year Enrollment Comparison School 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 -White- 611 607 669 621 598 518 329 331 310 297 - - ~ - - - Other 10 8 8 7 10 5 4 11 4 ~ - - - - - - Total 736 755 802 755 735 685 424 444 422 413 f- - - % Blk 17 18 16 17 18 23 21 25 24 27 I Taylor Elem Black 112 107 ~13] 112 108 122 141 149 165 115 -- - - White 329 346 337 306 308 264 266 270 230 261 - - - -- - -- - ---- -- Other 2 I 5 4 2 2 I 2 I - - -- -- Total 441 455 468 423 420 388 409 420 397 417 t--- - ,...... c- - % Blk 25 24 28 26 26 31 34 35 42 37 Tolleson Elem Black 84 83 126 137 136 127 124 I 15 128 120 - - -- White - 457 442 426 418 425 405 374 429 402 347 - - - - - Other 27 - 14 111- 8 0 I 0 0 27 -- - - - Total 541 552 - 566 566 569 532 499 544 530 494 - - -f- - % Blk 16 15 22 24 24 24 25 21 24 24 Suh Total - Elem Black 3,231 3,201 3,134 3,111 3,471 3,436 3,642 3,726 3,693 3,621 White J - -- 9,022 8,729. 8,774 8,679 8,824 7,992 7,752 7,715 7,443 7,028 + Other 125 92 89 115 75 147 121 141 183 Total 12,253 12,055 ___g,_o1o1,:8~7 9 r 12,410t 11,503 __! 1,541 11,562 11,277 t - t---- 10,832 $ Blk 26 27 26 26 28 30 32 32 33 33 Alternative - Sec. Black I l 16 17 16 16 22 21 -,_ -- t f----- Oponod for 1992-93 school White - 50 48 39 31 26- 27 yoar. f Other I - 0 0 0 0 I 0 661 - Total 65 *55 *47 *49 48 + % Blk 24 26 29 34 45 44 Fuller Jr. Black 375 398t 404 411 4251 410 424 ~~t 384 381 (includes a specialty t White 452 t 462 428 440 497 j 485 446 467 program) Other 5 5 12 13 9 13 - 13 Total 827 865 837 863 935 9 918 883 843 861 ' - % Blk 45 46 48 48 45 43 46 49 46 44 I Jacksonville Jr. North Black 128 142j 181 172 184 182 j 195 201 244 t 257 Re-organized h.:ginning White 439 463 534 444 458 401 414 434 399 477 with 1997-98: became a middk school: indudcd Other 10 15 10 12 II IO 0 10 7 grades 6-8. Total 567t 6151 730 626 j 654 594 619 635 t 653 i 741 t - % Blk 23 23 25 27 28 31 32 32 37 35 Jacksonville Jr. South Black 174 166 156 180 202 202 186 181 I 200 f 307 ' 1 White 486 444 420 403 381 355 338 323 318 453 Other 10-'-- 10 1 17 19 9 10 8 11 1 15 --- I rl //,-r .e\nJ., ('::\u0026gt; y (:J,v .:fl/~- p37- /~/~ ('.t\u0026gt;,,J I\"- 0 --%~\n ~l(\u0026lt;:.-f 77-01 LITTLE ROCK District LEA Number FAPD NO. 38 1.9.9h.91!. SCHOOL YEAR 10/23/97 Qrtr Ending Date 11/21/97 Date Submitted ~Q=r=t=r-\\=umb=-e-r~_REC~~~a~dent M. to M TRANSFERS SUPERINTENDENT'S QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE. REPORT, K12 ADT - ADA - ADM SEP 11 1998 TELEPHONE NUMBER_324::2.QQ0_ OFFIOCFE DESEGREMGOANTIIOTOHR J!m This report is due within fiftren (15) days after the end of each quarter (Ark.Code Ann. 6-18-213). Send one copy to the office of Local Fiscal Services, #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 and o-e copy to the County Board of Education. Each quarter is to be no less than 40 and no more than 50 days. I  1 ~jg.( n columns 2 thcu 14 should Days ~ to me nearest whole number in Qrtr C. Resident pupils sent t9 :Jther district(s) under .\"M to 1'l\" transfers List District s LEO.# North Little Rock Pulaski County Special Pulaski County Special P-4 D. Total C of columns 12, 3, 14. These ! ,. I *T 3,810 2,673 will be used for State Ecualization Aid purposes 7. E. Non-Resident pupils rec::ived from other district(s) under \"M to for' transfers List District/sl ~ North Little Rock I 45 j Pulaski County Special I 45 i \nPulaski County Special P-4 I 45 ! H. Number of kindergarten pupls enrolled this quarter' I I I 1 I A I .:\nI KINDEiRGART~N I f\"\\e:i- in/\\ Days I 10Absent I Total Total *NT Col 2+3 T+NT 3,810 168 2,673 98 90 I 90 I 7 I 1,524 1 1,524 I 62 I 1,625 I 1,625 I 95 I Full-Time.~4~_4_ _ f\nI 7 I 0 I n 1t\\ I 11 I p i n I ,a I GRADES 1 -12 COMBl['JED TOTAL ADM Days in Attendance Days GRADES K-12 Total l *I\\IT_-, 7otal Absent Total ADT ADA I ADM Col 4+5 Columns Total Col 9+10 Col 2+7 Col 4+9 Col 4+5+ ..: Col 1 *T 7+8 T+NT .o Col,1 .oCol 1 .oCol 1 9+10...:Col 1 I I I 4,009 I 4,009 278 I 100 93 1 100 88 I~ -4Maa-! ~, 1\n'!M- ...,440---1 ..1.-=- 62 I I I tit/IC./ l/81CI ,Z//0 /117 . //.55 2 I I 1,612 I 1,612 ! 111 I 38\ni 38 I 40 35 I I 15,751 I 15,751 i 633 I 364 ! 384 I 399 38 I I I i I I I Half-time _____ _ Additional instructions on back FIN-09-00-005 5/91 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT November 1 a, 1 997 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Fuller Jacksonville North Jacksonville South Northwood Robinson (2-rooms devlded) Scott (Alternative Sch.) Sylvan Hills ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Melo Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 800 800 964 486 125 925 SCHOOL CAPACITY 370 420 330 768 660 576 833 340 820 465 526 525 785 568 325 476 500 556 523 450 280 460 456 450 570\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1671","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-09-26"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School board members","Joshua Intervenors","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1671"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFiCE OF DESEGREGATiOiu t,10.'JITORINJ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD\") states: 1. This court has expressed the view that modifications of LRSD' s Desegregation Plan might be appropriate. The court has properly recognized that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications, but has provided expert testimony concerning potential areas for modification. The court further assisted the plan modification process by providing LRSD a period of time during which the district could  concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Order, December 27, 1996. LRSD has prepared a modified plan for the purpose of providing improved education and desegregation. LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and :Education Plan is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. 2. LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was developed in accordance with the plan amendment process. All of the parties to this case received early drafts of the plan and had the opportunity to make suggestions concerning the plan. LRSD amended the plan in response to suggestions made by various parties. In addition, the Joshua Intervenors were specifically asked whether they bad any ideas for improving the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Joshua did not make any suggestions for plan modifications. Although much of the contact soliciting responses from other parties was made by telephone, the correspondence which reflects the distribution of LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and our solicitation of responses from the other parties is attached as Exhibit B to this motion. 3. On September 18, 1997 the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to adopt the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and to present it to the district court for approval. The comments of the board members, attached as Exhibit C, show that they gave serious consideration to the plan and that they understand the important commitment they have made to work for the success of the plan if it is approved by the district court. Representatives of the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools expressed to the board their strong support for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4. The United States Supreme Court has emphasized in the recent cases of Freeman v. Pitts and Missouri y. Jenkins that the district court's end purpose in a desegregation case is not only to remedy the violation to the extent practicable, but also to restore state and local authorities to control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a means by which this court can 2 accomplish both the maximum practicable desegregation within LRSD and the restoration of local control to the LRSD Board of Directors and the citizens of Little Rock. 5. LRSD's current desegregation plan was designed to operate for a period of six years. It is too detailed, too complex and too rigid to provide LRSD the greatest possibility for long term desegregation. The primary architects of the old plan are no longer with the district. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan retains the core desegregation commitments found in the old plan, but is premised on the belief that a solid education program provides the best foundation for long term desegregation. 6. The new plan also provides the flexibility necessary for LRSD to adapt to changing educational and demographic conditions. LRSD has more freedom under the new plan to adjust the means by which it seeks to reach its desegregation and education goals without unnecessary court involvemenL Under the present plan, every detail concerning implementation of the plan is a part of the plan itself and cannot be changed without involving the court. 7. This court previously found that LRSD would benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Order, December 27, 1996. LRSD asks the court to continue the temporary hiatus from monitoring during the court's consideration of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 8. As part of the effort to allow the parties to focus on the development of modifications to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, LRSD withdrew its motion for reconsideration of this court's ruling on LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. The court granted LRSD a period of time to and including September 30, 1997 within which to refile its motion 3 for reconsideration. LRSD asks that that deadline be extended until a reasonable time following this court's final determination with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 9. This Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation And Education Plan should not be construed as a waiver of the positions expressed in the Motion to E.nd Federal Court Jurisdiction. 10. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD moves for an order approving its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and, during the pendency of this motion, extending this court's December 27, 1997 Order with respect to monitoring and with respect to LRSD's right to refile its motion to reconsider the court's ruling on LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Ir. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:~(?_-~~ ~C. Fendley, Jr. ' Bar No. 92182 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 26th day of September, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~e.~fJ C.F~ 5 I. Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan September 18, 1997 Prior A~reements and Orders. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Lillie Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: A. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); B. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; C. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; D. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, E. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing paragraphs A. through D. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. II. Obligations. A. LRSD shall use its expertise and resources to comply with the Constitution and provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools and to ensu_re that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD; B. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures, including but not limited to recruitment practices and reasonable measures to maintain a pool of qualified AfricanAmerican applicants, designed to ensure that LRSD hires qualified African-Americans in EXHIBIT A proportion to their percentage in the relevant labor market; C. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures, including but not limited to reasonable measures to maintain a pool of qualified African-American candidates, designed to ensure that LRSD promotes qualified African-Americans in proportion to their percentage of the pool of candidates eligible for promotion; D. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that to the extent practicable the percentage of African-American certified personnel in each LRSD school is within plus or minus fifteen percentage points from the percentage of AfricanAmerican certified personnel in the district as a whole; E. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure to the extent practicable that the certified personnel at one race, African-American schools (2. 90% African-American) is comparable with the certified personnel at other LRSD schools with regard to years of teaching experience and number of teachers with advanced degrees; F. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable; G. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education; H. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline; I. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African- 2 Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses and the gifted and talented program; J. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section V. of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; K. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students; L. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools; M. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities; N. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services; 0. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination; and, P. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. III. Student Assignments. A. Attendance Zones. Before the 1998-99 school year, LRSD attendance zones shall 3 be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD shall assign students to area1 elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent AfricanAmerican) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in subparagraph 2. below; 2. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent African-American, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school; or, b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African- American students. 3. High Schools. LRSD shall assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that, to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. B. Voluntar:y Student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 school year, the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than 1The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 4 sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes less than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (2.. 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 4. Employees' Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 5. Special Circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; 6. Outside Students. LRSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD; and, 5 7. Transportation. LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. C. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: 1. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program; 2. King High Intensity Learning Program; 3. Washington Math Science Program; 4. Henderson Health Science Program; 5. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program; 6. Central International Studies Program; and, 7. McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. D. Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. E. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, Garland Elementary School shall be closed. F. Modification Standard; During the term of this Revised Desegregation and 6 Education Plan, LRSD shall not recommend additional modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of any additional schools unless: 1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable; or, 2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. G. Racial Balance. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. IV. lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: A. PCSSD lnterdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools; B. LRSD lnterdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as lnterdistrict Schools; 7 C. Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School; D. Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD; E. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools; F. Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition; and, G. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. V. Student Achievement. A. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. B. Reading/Language Arts. 1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently to make accurate meaning out of words on a page; 8 b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c Promote thematic instruction; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement; 1. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; J. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; and, k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day. 2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four and six: a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students 9 will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment; b. Promote thematic instruction; c. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction; d. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; f. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement; and, g. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom. 3. Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six2 through twelve: a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently to make meaning in all subjects areas every day as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners: b. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula; c. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on 2LRSD recognizes that the sixth grade was previously included as an intermediate grade. The sixth grade is also included here since it will be a transition year into middle school. 10 reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking; d. Expand the use of a second Language Arts class at all secondary grade levels and establish procedures for identifying eligible students and, where practical, assigning students to their regular Language Arts teachers; e. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies; f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. C. Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction: 1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation; 2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum; 3. Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention; and, 4. Revise the mathematics curriculum to increase the number of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher level mathematics courses. D. Funding. LRSD shall continue to provide additional funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller elementary schools in accordance with the current formula as described 11 in August 16, 1995 report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. E. Alternative Education. LRSD shall provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment. F. Parental and Community Involvement. LRSD shall establish a parental and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. VI. Teacher Assignments. A. Beginning in the 1998-99 school year and for the term of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD reserves the right to reassign teachers and/or prohibit teacher transfers as reasonably necessary to ensure: 1. that to the extent practicable the percentage of African-American certified personnel in each LRSD school is within plus or minus fifteen percentage points from the percentage of African-American certified personnel in the district as a whole; and, 2. that to the extent practicable the certified personnel at one race, African- American schools (2.. 90% African-American) is comparable w~th the certified personnel at other LRSD schools with regard to years of teaching experience and number of teachers with advanced degrees. B. Reasonably Necessary. Reassigning and/or prohibiting the transfer of a teacher shall not be reasonably necessary where the desegrative impact would be substantially outweighed by the educational benefits of allowing a teacher to remain in his or her present assignment or to transfer to another assignment. 12 VII. LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: A. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; B. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent; C. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees; D. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; E. Utilization of a reporting system whereby employees can report noncompliance without fear of retribution, including an employee hotline; F. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for the failure to report noncompliance; and, G. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. VIII. Plan Modification Process. Before filing with the district court a proposed modification of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD shall follow the procedure set forth below: A. LRSD shall submit to the other parties and to the Office of 13 Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") its proposed modification along with an explanation of the circumstances justifying modification and the educational and financial impact of the proposed modification. B. Comment Period. Along with its notice of the proposed modification, LRSD shall establish a reasonable period of time (no less than ten days) for the parties and ODM to submit comments, recommendations or suggestions related to the proposed modification. C. Recommendation and Response. After the close of the comment period, LRSD shall file with the district court and serve on the parties its recommended modification and, at LRSD's discretion, a response to comments made by the parties and ODM. D. Hearing. Absent good cause shown, no party shall be permitted to raise an issue in opposition to LRSD's recommended modification unless that issue was raised by the party during the comment period. IX. Continuing Jurisdiction. A. General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan during its term. Nothing in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall effect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement with the exception of the Pooling Agreement. B. Process For Raising Compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the party seeking to raise the issue shall follow the procedure set forth below: 1. The party shall as soon as reasonably practicable give the LRSD 14 Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following: a. the paragraph(s) of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan at issue; b. the names of all students involved, if any; c. the names of all LRSD agents or employees involved, if any; d. all facts of which the party is aware relevant to the compliance issue; and, e. a copy all documents in party's possession relevant to the compliance issue. 2. The written notice 1s intended to provide LRSD with all relevant information related to the compliance issue known to the parry so that LRSD can assess its compliance on the same basis the party. 3. LRSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the party a written response within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from the party or such later time as agreed. 4. If the party is unsatisfied with LRSD's response, the party shall within 30 days of receipt of LRSD's response submit the compliance issue to ODM or the district court's designee for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. 5. If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by ODM or the district court's designee, the party may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. 6. Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, LRSD shall 15 be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with - this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The term of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year. XI. Transition. The 1997-98 school year shall be a transition year in preparation for implementation of this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. During this transition period, LRSD shall implement the May 1992 Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan to the extent they are consistent with this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. However, there shall be no ODM monitoring or litigation concerning LRSD's implementation of the May 1992 Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Rather, ODM shall monitor LRSD's preparation for implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and act as a resource for LRSD in that process. XII. Unitarv Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 16 FRIDAY, ELDRED GE \u0026 CLARK 1411SCH(L H. FIIIOAY (11221114} WILLIAM H. IUTTON , , .A . .IAM(S W . WOOIIE IYIION M. EIS(MAN . .lllll . , P'.A . .10 D. IELL. P' .A . A l'ARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDlfALS AND l'ROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW  C . ECHOLS . ,. . A . SA. IUTTllllY , ,. .A . ElllllCl S . UIISEllllY , l\".A . LAllllZEUllllE, P' .A . OSCAII E. OAVl8 , .IA ., , . A . JAMES C . CLAAl , JA .. l\".A . THOMAS, . LEGGETT, l\" .A . JOHN O[W[Y WATSON, P' .A . ,AUL I . IENHAM Ill , l\" .A. LAIIIIY W. IUllll , fl . A . A. WYCI.LIFF NISl[T , Jl't ., fl . A. JAMES EOWAl'IO HA.lllll'IIS, l\" . A . J . l'HILLII\" MALCOM , l\" .A . JAME  M. SIMl'SON, l\" .A . JAMES M. SAXTON , , .A . J . SHErH[l'IO l'IUIIELL Ill , fl . A. DONALD H. IACON . l\" .A . WILLIAM THOMAS IAXT11 . ,. .A . WALTER A . l\"AULSON II , l\" .A . IAIIIIIY E. COl\"LIN , l\" .A . lllllCHAIIO 0 . TAYLOR , P' .A . JOIEl'H I . HURST, Jfl . , fl .A . [LIZAIETH IIOll[N MUflllllAY , , . A . CHfllSTO,HEl't HELLER , , . A . LAUllllA HENSLEY SMtTH , , . A . IIOIUIT I . SHAF[llll , fl .A . WILLIAM M. GIIIFFIN Ill , fl.A. MICHAELS . MOORE , l\" .A . DIANE 9 . MACl.[Y , , .A. WAL TOI M. EIEL Il l , l\" .A . I.EVIN A . CIIASS , l\" . A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JII ., l\" .A . John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING \u003c400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3-413 TELEPHONE 501-378-2011 FAX NO . 501-378-21\u003c47 June 5, 1997 Re: Little Rock School District Work Teams Dear John "},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_r-0113","title":"Oral history interview with Margaret Kennedy Goodwin, September 26, 1997","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Hornsby-Gutting, Angela","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862"],"dcterms_creator":["Goodwin, Margaret Kennedy, 1918-"],"dc_date":["1997-09-26"],"dcterms_description":["Margaret Kennedy Goodwin was born in Clarkton, North Carolina, in 1918. Just two years later, her family relocated to Durham, North Carolina, because of her father's job with North Carolina Mutual. In this interview, Goodwin speaks at length about the African American community in Durham during the 1930s and 1940s. Describing a thriving African American business center and a close-knit community that treated one another like extended family, Goodwin laments that urban renewal programs of the 1970s and 1980s ultimately led to the disintegration of that sense of community. Goodwin also speaks at length about the prominent role religion had played in her life -- primarily by way of her family's involvement with the White Rock Baptist Church -- and her educational and career aspirations. In 1933, at the age of fifteen, Goodwin left Durham to attend Talladega College in Alabama, where she met her future husband. After they were married, they lived briefly in Washington, D.C., before returning to Durham. In 1941, her husband was killed in the war; Goodwin was left alone to care for her infant daughter. She had been working at Lincoln Hospital as a technician in the radiology laboratory since 1938 and continued to do so in subsequent decades. While arguing that she did not see herself as a career woman of choice, Goodwin describes the kinds of obstacles African American women faced professionally, along with the challenges of being a single, working mother. For Goodwin, the supportive role of her family helped assuage the kinds of tensions that many other women in her position faced. Goodwin also discusses at length her desire to become a doctor. Explaining that most women during those years could expect to find employment as nurses, teachers, or secretaries (especially at North Carolina Mutual), she was always encouraged to pursue her interests in science during her childhood. While her goal of becoming a doctor never came to fruition, she expresses content with her accomplishments at Lincoln Hospital.","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":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American women--North Carolina--Durham","Radiologic technologists--North Carolina--Durham","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social life and customs","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social conditions","Durham (N.C.)--Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Margaret Kennedy Goodwin, September 26, 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/R-0113/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Dec. 3, 2008).","Interview participants: Margaret Kennedy Goodwin, interviewee; Angela Hornsby, interviewer.","Duration: 01:28:56.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Goodwin, Margaret Kennedy, 1918-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"kdl_abrad_19970914bond","title":"Interview with Julian Bond, September 14, 1997","collection_id":"kdl_abrad","collection_title":"Anne Braden Oral History Project","dcterms_contributor":["Fosl, Catherine"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","United States, Kentucky, Jefferson County, Louisville, 38.25424, -85.75941"],"dcterms_creator":["Bond, Julian, 1940-"],"dc_date":["1997-09-14"],"dcterms_description":["Interview with Julian Bond, September 14, 1997 conducted by Catherine Fosl.","Julian Bond is an African American politician, a leading social activist in the Civil Rights Movement, a professor, a writer, an original founder of SNCC, the first president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the current chairman of the NAACP. In this interview, Bond begins by discussing his initial impressions of both Bradens and their brainchild SCEF, perceptions that were often laced with the \"taint\" of Communism. He also outlines the evolution of Anne's relationship with SNCC both as an individual and through SCEF. Perhaps more particularly, Bond highlights Anne's role as a vital source of media connections for SNCC, and the ways in which these connections helped establish its political presence."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights workers--Interviews","Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.)","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","Southern Conference Educational Fund","Southern Regional Council","Atlanta inquirer","Communism--United States","Communist Party of the United States of America","United States. Congress. House. Committee on Un-American Activities","Atlanta journal-constitution","Jacksonville Daily News (Jacksonville, N.C.)","African Americans--Civil rights--United States","African American civil rights workers--United States","Communists--United States","Cold War--Influence","Reporters and reporting--Southern States","College students--Political activity--Georgia--Atlanta","Boycotts--Georgia--Atlanta","College teachers--Political activity--Georgia--Atlanta","United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation","International Union, United Automobile Workers of America (CIO)","Pittsburgh courier","Race relations","Southern States--Race relations","Public relations--United States","Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","Civil rights movements--Southern States","Black power--United States","Leadership--United States","Role models--United States","Bond, Julian, 1940- --Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with Julian Bond, September 14, 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Kentucky"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://kentuckyoralhistory.org/ark:/16417/xt7s4m91937b"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["All rights to the interviews, including but not restricted to legal title, copyrights and literary property rights, have been transferred to the University of Kentucky Libraries."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","sound recordings","transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview :  [00:53:44]"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Braden, Anne, 1924-2006","Braden, Carl, 1914-1975","Forman, James, 1928-2005","Dombrowski, James A. (James Anderson), 1897-1983","Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","Zellner, Bob","Stembridge, Jane","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Shipp, Bill","Rustin, Bayard, 1912-1987","Curry, Constance, 1933-","Baker, Ella, 1903-1986","Hutchings, Phil, 1942-","Melish, William Howard, 1910-","Barry, Marion, 1936-2014","McDew, Charles","Lewis, John, 1940-2020","Moses, Robert Parris","Watters, Pat","Gaston, Paul M., 1928-","Zinn, Howard, 1922-2010"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1678","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1678"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EOWARO L WRIGHT ( 19031977) ROBERTS LINDSEY 1191 3-1991 I ISAAC A SCOTT JR JOHN G LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S RATHER .JR TERRY L MATr-lEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD . ..;R PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON .JENNINGS. JR .JOHN R TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M . SAMUEL .JONES Ill .JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N M NORTON EDGAR .J . TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER .R CHARLES L SCHLUMBEq;GER SAMMYE L . TAYLOR WALTER E . MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBS0'.\"11 GREGORY T. JONES H KEITH MORRISON Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building Suite 510 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX t501) 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A MAY M TODD WOOD September 11, 1997 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas RE: LRSD v. PCSSD (State Funding) Dear Ms. Brown: 72201 SETTINA E BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSP4.0DEN ~OGER O ROWE \"IIANCY BELLHCUSE \"\"'~y JOHN O DAVIS .UOY SIMMONS HE\"IIRY ... IMBERLY WOOC n,;c~EQ ~AY F CO'\u003c JR \"'IARRY S HURST .R TROY A PRICE PA.TRICIA A SIEVERS .. AMES M MOOCY ..;R \"'(ATHRYN A PRYOR .J_ '-1ARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCCC -.... \"EVIN W KENNEDY .:EARY J SALL,NGS C-RED M PERKINS Ill W ILLIAM STUART JAC~SC'.\"11 \\.tlCHAEL O BARNES STEPHEN R :..ANCAS7ER .. UOY \\1 ROBINSON 9E:'SY MEACHAM .\\ INSLEY H :..ANG i\u003cYLE R W ILSOS ::ON S McKINNEY \\.tlCHELE SIMMONS AL-G::.::: -\u003cR IS TI M \\.tOOOY .J CH ARLES OOU GHEE=l:Tv \\.t SEAN HATC!-i We enclose a copy of the brief and appendix we sent to the 8th Circuit on Monday, September 8, 1997. ALJ:MM Enclosures Very truly yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS (-'- C I --- Angell Jones Legal Assistant   -   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-1855EALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. SEP 1 2 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-185SEALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Appeals from the United States District Court APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The State and Intervenors maintain that summary judgment was inappropriate both as a matter of law and because there were contested factual matters among the parties. For there to be a legally disputed fact, the disputed fact must be both material and the dispute genuine. The State disputed the fact that sums previously appropriated by the legislature as line items for teacher retirement and health insurance are now part of the overall appropriation for equalization funding. Because the proof left no room for reasonable minds to differ, the so called dispute cannot be characterized as \"genuine\". The State also contended there was a disputed issue of fact concerning the mechanism for distribution of equalization funding claiming that it interpreted the distribution in one fashion and the districts another. Because the District Court accepted the State's explanation, this dispute, if it was ever legally cognizable, played no role in the District Courts' decision. Further, in the final analysis the District Court's interpretation of these two matters amounts to an interpretation of new state law and is therefore a legal conclusion properly reached by the District Court. As this is a matter of significant financial impact upon the PCSSD, and implicates the continued proper functioning and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, it respectfully requests fifteen minutes for oral argument. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Summary judgment was appropriate because the \"facts\" alleged by the State and the Intervenors could not be genuinely disputed. In addition, the analysis conducted by the district court, and the essential conclusion she made, amount to conclusions of law since she was required to interpret new state legislation. The PCSSD was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the change from the old to the new funding system cost it over $5.5 million this past school year. The State's decision to change its manner of funding for health insurance premiums and teacher retirement matching was not a fair and rational change in the funding system because, as was the case in the workers' compensation appeal, the State changed from a cost-based system of distribution to one in which a district's student population drives the distribution. Just as in the case of workers' compensation, a change to a system in which student populations largely dictate the distribution of State funding ignores costs, is not fair and rational and is not in accord with the Settlement Agreement. ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENT I. II. III. IV. CONCLUSION STANDARD OF REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW .............. . THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE PCSSD IS A WINNER UNDER THE NEW SCHEME IS PLAINLY WRONG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii Page i ii iv 1 5 5 5 12 20 29 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (1985) STATUTES AND RULES: 14 12 Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)2 ............... 6 OTHER AUTHORITY: U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OP THB CASE Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) does not quarrel with the State's and Intervenors' history of the case and their description of the outcomes. A couple of minor clarifications are in order, and will be set forth below. There is, however, a major matter set forth in both Statements which is wrong and this will be addressed first. In the concluding paragraphs of the State's brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the State contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 State Br. at p. 24, [Emphasis supplied.] Contrary to the State's assertion that the PCSSD was a \"winner\", and as it will demonstrate in Section IV, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 this past school year because of the new funding system. The State also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". State App. at p.98. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic] equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors contend that: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. Br. at p. 10. The PCSSD has now examined the effects of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate, relying upon data obtained from the State, that the new funding system as a whole cost the PCSSD at least $5,500,000 this past school year. At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. Other Matters The three Pulaski Districts did not move to intervene as plaintiffs in the Lake View case. They simply intervened as parties to protect and represent, in state court, the rights, protections and safeguards they possessed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement over which the District Court has I jurisdiction. PC App. at p. 58. I I I I Also, the State paid the districts $130,000,000 to settle the state's legal liability to these three Districts and secured 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a Release and Dismissal. They did not pay these sums simply to help the Districts pay for some of their desegregation costs. The sums specified by the State that would result in increased M-to-M payments to the Districts are not supported by any citation to the record. However, even if these amounts are accurate, the increases are accounted for by annual increases in overall State appropriations and by the fact that instead of being paid directly by the State, teacher retirement and health insurance are now paid through the new formula and, as the district court explained in her orders, this method of payment short-changes the three Pulaski Districts as compared to most other districts in the state. State Ad. p. 5. Thus, while this manner of payment does operate to increase M-to-M payments, it comes at the expense of reduced State aid overall to the PCSSD. The Intervenors contend that the declaration of Winston Simpson, Superintendent of the Bryant School District, is uncontradicted on the issue of employee costs. In fact, an examination of this declaration reveals that Mr. Simpson examined only certified salary costs (such as teacher salaries) and not the overall employee costs for the PCSSD which includes non certified staff. However, the record developed in this case from previous hearings is uncontradicted that employee costs in the PCSSD consume more than 80% of its annual budget, PC App. at p. 87 1 4, and that its average teacher salary ranks as the 5th or 6th highest in the State. PC App. at p.2-3. What Mr. Simpson's analysis really shows is that the PCSSD spends 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I substantial money on items other than certified salaries, such as desegregation. The Intervenors contend that the Districts are seeking to take funds from the public school fund that would otherwise go, they claim, to the students of other school districts in Arkansas. Int. Br. at p. 17. The three Districts neither contend for nor do they expect such a result. Rather, they presume, and indeed recommend, continuation of that which has pertained in the past. In the past, the State has transferred the amounts necessary to make desegregation payments from the state general revenue fund and placed those sums in the public school fund for distribution to these three Districts. Thus, monies appropriated for education are not simply taken from the public school fund. State App. at p. 360 1 B. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OP' REVIEW. The PCSSD addresses the Appellant's points here only as necessary, in Point II below. II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN P'AVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. The Intervenors correctly point out that the standard in the Eighth Circuit is that a genuine issue of material fact must exist and if there is a disputed fact, the disputed fact must be material and the dispute genuine. Int. Br. at p. 7. [emphasis supplied] It is the latter point upon which the District focuses, i.e, the purported dispute is not, at bottom, genuine. The State contends there were two \"core factual matters\" disputed by the State, and that because they were disputed summary judgment should have been denied. State Br. at p. 17. The first \"dispute\" was whether or not the money the state previously paid outside the formula as teacher retirement and health insurance matching is now being distributed within the new formula. Because it was so obvious that this is the case, it was unreasonable for the State to dispute this fact. First, simple mathematics prove the point. As the district court observed, the public school fund was forecast to rise by more than $200,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 above the levels which existed at the time of the Lake View decision. State Ad. at p. 7. When the 1995-96 appropriations for teacher retirement 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ($130,000,000) and health insurance ($42,815,000) are combined, the sum equals $172,815,000. Subtracting this sum from the $200,000,000 increase still leaves $27,185,000. Combining this with the forecasted increase leaves $227,185,000 over and above the last appropriation that included teacher retirement and health insurance as line item appropriations. Thus, clearly the money represented by the prior line item appropriations is still being appropriated, just in a different fashion. If simple mathematics do not suffice, then the admission of Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) should. She testified that dollars that were previously part of identified funds were consolidated into the new equalization funding scheme. State Ad. at p. 8. This admission by the top financial official at the State Department of Education is binding upon the State pursuant to Fed. Rules of Evidence 80l(d)2. Further, as noted by the District Court, the State's own budget documents demonstrate the same treatment. (\"Transportation Aid ... eliminated as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula\"; \"[e]liminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization formula\"; [e]liminated all at-risk funding ... and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid\"). State Ad. at p. 8. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In addition, the District Court correctly credited the uncontradicted testimony of Dr. Benny Gooden for the same proposition. Dr. Gooden heads the Fort Smith School District, a lead intervenor in this appeal. State Ad. at p. 8. The district court also properly relied upon the testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the lead school district in the original State funding formula litigation, Alma v. Dupree. Finally, the State's funding expert in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller, likewise stated his belief that the money previously appropriated for teacher retirement and health insurance was put into the pool of money that would flow through the new equalization formula. State Ad. at p. 9. In the face of this, it is readily apparent that the money that previously was paid outside the formula by the State for teacher retirement matching and health insurance simply became part of the new overall appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per student basis under the new formula. For the State to claim otherwise in the face of such evidence is to simply elevate form over substance. In the final analysis, the issue of whether these sums continued to be appropriated or not is really not a \"factual\" matter at all. One of the tasks of the District Court was to interpret Act 917 and the accompanying appropriation legislation, Act 1194. She did so and her interpretation, that the appropriation continues, is a legal conclusion. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This is consistent with the position the State took during the Workers Compensation hearing. In the midst of continuing questioning of Dr. Shaver concerning his opinion as to whether or not Worker's Compensation was a program under the Settlement Agreement, the State finally objected as follows: MR. HUMPHRIES: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this continued line of questioning. The -- the argument is a legal one that the Settlement Agreement says that the State share that the State shall continue to pay its share of any programs which -- for -- for which the districts now receive state funding. And that's a legal argument. THE COURT: Well, I will certainly sustain that objection ... PC App. p. 16. Clearly, the phrasing of the objection was not limited to Worker's Compensation but to \"any programs\". Distribution Per ADM The other core \"fact\" identified by the State concerns the manner of distribution of funds under the new act. The State contends now that the Districts contended below that the new formula distributes funds on a pure per student basis. State Br. at p. 17. The State argues that because funds are distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends in part, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I While the State may misapprehend the argument of the Districts below, suffice it to say that the district court did not. Indeed, in her February 18, 1997 order, the district court quoted from Arkansas budget documents for the proposition that: Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funding to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas. State Ad. at p. 8. [emphasis supplied] that: Later in the same order, the district court plainly stated The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. State Ad. at p. 9. [emphasis supplied] The Districts do not contend that the distribution is a pure per student distribution as contended by the State. Rather, it is the contention of the Districts that distributing such funds through a formula which is driven by ADM (Average Daily Membership) discriminates against them because it ignores actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. Further, the State is correct when it states at page 18 of its brief that: Because it is distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. State Br. at p. 18. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Indeed, this aspect of the new funding formula exacerbates the problem even more for these Districts since they vote high millage which further reduces their State aid under the new scheme. PC App. p. 52. What really matters, however, is that the District Court understood the state's point. However the State may now mischaracterize the position of the Districts below, the fact remains that the District Court understood and articulated the distribution distinctions now being made by the State. Stated another way, that which the State contends was a matter of fact in dispute between it and the Districts below was not a factor in the District Courts' decision. The record made in the Worker Compensation's hearing is instructive here. The state's witness in that proceeding, Dr. Robert Shaver2 , testified that prior to the change in the law requiring school districts to fund their own Worker's Compensation program, the state simply received a bill from the Worker's Compensation Commission and paid it on behalf of the school districts by withdrawing money from the public school fund. PC App. p. 11. He further testified that in 1993-94, the last year the state paid these costs directly, the claims I experience was $5,200,000. PC App. p. 12. The previous year the experience was $8,200,000. PC App. p. 13. While the record for I that proceeding contains only \"rounded off\" numbers, the average I I I I of those two years is still $6,700,000. Thus, it would 2Dr. Shaver was the top financial official at the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. p. 17 and 18. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I reasonably appear that the State's appropriation of 6.6 million dollars that has been characterized by the State as \"seed money\" in its brief (State Br. p. 19) was in actuality an average of the two years immediately preceding the change in the law. Thus it would appear the appropriation that the State made several years ago, and continues to make, for Worker's compensation assistance is virtually identical to how it has handled Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance. It is still distributing the same respective sums of money but because the distribution is now driven primarily by ADM's rather than cost, the three districts in Pulaski County are shortchanged. The State's persistence in seeking to shift from a cost basis, which was fair and rational as respects these three districts, to an essentially ADM driven basis, makes the legal analysis for the present appeal not logically different from the analysis that pertained in the Worker's Compensation appeal. This new manner of distribution results in these three districts receiving proportionally less money for these state mandated costs than most other districts in the state of Arkansas. Once again, the District Court's ruling on this matter necessarily represented her interpretation of the distribution mechanism outlined in Act 917 resulting in her legal conclusion concerning the operation of State law. Thus, in the final analysis, the State cannot in reality present a case of disputed facts since the District Court was essentially making reasoned interpretations of State statutes. 11 I I I I I I I III. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OP SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AP'PIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. At page 10 of their brief, the Intervenors assert that: By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled. (Citing Dupree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 (1983). Continuing, they contend that: However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. (Citing Dupree and Lake View.) Int. Br. at p. 10. I I This argument was advanced in this case by the State in the I Court of Appeals years ago. The en bane court in 1985 disposed I I I I I I I I I of that argument in the following language: [Fn.l] The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, substantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the State, DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983), and with a statute implementing this opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann.  80-850.10 - 80-850.22. This argument is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2, the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. (Arnold, J. concurring.) 778 F.2d at 437. What also appears to be lost upon the intervenors is the fact that the PCSSD is not on a par with the intervening school districts. The Intervenors have not been required to 12 I I I I I I I I I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I desegregate. The PCSSD desegregation budget alone is $12,500,000, representing 11.07% of its total budget. PC App. p. 88. It no longer receives the stream of payments from the State that the Settlement Agreement provided. That has ended. What the State should not be permitted to end is it's commitment to continue to make the payments for programs as promised in the Settlement Agreement. While the State pretends that its funding for Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance has ended, the programs most surely have not. All that has changed is that the PCSSD must now pay the bills and that the State no longer provides a method of distribution for those monies that comports with the Settlement Agreement. The distribution of what used to be funds paid directly for teacher retirement and health insurance is, in operation, identical to the seed money analysis previously made by this Court and the district court as regards workers' compensation. In the latter instance, the distribution was simply made to the school districts based on enrollment. Here, the distribution, while made through the new formula, is still done in a way in which students (ADM) drive the distribution rather than cost. While it is true that certain features of the formula operate to raise or lower the amounts districts now receive for teacher retirement or health insurance, the fact remains that the distribution is student driven. The legal infirmities and violations of the settlement argument are further addressed beginning at page 21. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Intervenors' Employee Cost Argument The intervenors, in particular, persist in challenging what has become the law of the case. They continue to attack the previous findings of the District Court, as accepted by this Court (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 at 1018 (8th Cir. 1996)) that the three Pulaski Districts are employee heavy and have high employee cost. While the Intervenors rely only upon an affidavit that the PCSSD has had no opportunity to contest or explore, (as we discuss further beginning at page 15) the fact remains that the District Court had direct testimony from the State's witness in the Worker's Compensation hearing to this effect. In an exchange that is part of the record on appeal from the Worker's Compensation appeal, the District Court heard the following from Dr. Shaver: Q. And you would agree that of the districts in the state, Pulaski and Little Rock are singled out, if you will, by operation of this statute and this premium structure to pay the two highest premiums? A. I -- by by virtue of its number of employees and salaries that would seem to be the case. THE COURT: Yes. By virtue of the number of employees and the salary, but you're giving them money based on the number of students. THE WITNESS: That's true. THE COURT: Yes, that's their problem. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. p. 14. At the same hearing, the State acknowledged that the record in this case is a continuing one. PC App. p. 15. Dr. Simpson need not have gone to the trouble of going to the Arkansas Department of Education for his information since it was already a part of this case by October 1, 1993. At a hearing held on the PCSSD budget that date, counsel for the teacher's union tried the same tact attempted by Dr. Simpson in his affidavit. After first positing to Dr. Stewart3 the percentage of the total budget committed to teacher compensation, which percentages ranged from 54% to 56%, the following exchange occurred in open court between counsel and Dr. Stewart of the PCSSD: Q. Now, those figures pretty dramatically illustrate that the teachers in this district are not getting these big pay increases as far as a percentage of the total budget of Pulaski County, are they? A. I don't think that's what those figures represent at all, Mr. Roachell. Q. What do you -- what do you think they represent? A. Well, they represent exactly what you said they represent. Those numbers that you just read represent the total amount of the district budget, the total percentage amount of the district budget that has been spent on teacher salaries, and to turn that into what 3Dr. Stewart is the chief financial officer of the PCSSD. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I you said it meant is totally ridiculous because that's not what it meant at all. PC App. at pp. 4 and 5. In the same hearing, it was established that the PCSSD then ranked #6 in the State out of 311 districts in average teacher's salaries as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. at p. 2. Accordingly, all that can be divined from Dr. Simpson's analysis is that because the PCSSD has one of the highest average teacher salary payments in the State, it must be spending an extraordinary amount of money on other things, such as desegregation. The point was driven home by Dr. Stewart at the same hearing: Q. For instance, in looking at this -- and I'm just going to do a couple of these, your Honor -- the Rogers School District in the what some people refer to as the growing -- located in the growing affluence of northwest Arkansas ranks behind the Pulaski District at position No. 8? A. You got the list. Q. All right. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Rogers, Arkansas? A. No. In fact, having worked in that county for seven years, definitely no. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q. We rank just -- we rank just behind Springdale, although perhaps with these recent adjustment, we're ahead of them. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Springdale? A. No. Q. Perhaps to state the obvious, would that translate into meaning they're not spending any money on desegregation? A. Yes. PC App. p. 3. It is clear that the District Court understood the significance of all this. When the District Court was questioning the Union's witness at the October, 1993 hearing, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: The cost of living and the comparable wage patterns. Do you ascribe any weight at all to the fact that PACT is a signatory to this very expensive Settlement Agreement? THE WITNESS: I don't disagree with that. Help me out. I'm -- I'm not sure -- THE COURT: Should that be -- I mean, should I consider that or should the district consider that? When you say you consider three things in determining the pay raise, one is ability to pay, two are comparable wage patterns, and three is cost of living. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE COURT: And I imagine that these comparable wage patterns in many districts are -- the districts aren't facing what this district is facing. THE WITNESS: I -- I -- THE COURT: They don't have to come to Susan Webber Wright's court -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. You -- THE COURT: -- and be dressed down -' THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE COURT: and they don't have to go along with this burdensome Desegregation Plan. THE WITNESS: I understand. THE COURT: And PACT was part of this. THE WITNESS: I understand that. THE COURT: Well, should I consider that? I think I should -- THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: -- quite frankly. PC App. pp. 6 and 7. The Intervenors' Lake View Argument The Intervenors spend much of their brief analyzing the State court decision in Lake View apparently under the assumption that the Districts contended in federal court in the present proc "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1673","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief for appellee Little Rock School District (LRSD)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1673"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["135 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FRIDAY , ELDREDGE\u0026: CLARK H(IUCH(L H FRIDAY ( 1117 - tlI WllLIAW H tUTTON . r A JAM(I W WOO\"[ IYIIIIOH M (ll(MAN. JIii . ,. A JO( 0 IILL. ,. A . A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIV IOUAL5 ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOC ' A TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN C . (CHOlt , ,. A J 4M(I A IUTT,.Y , ,. A . FIIUQ(IIIIIClt  . Ullll(IIIY , f' A . H f L.41UL\" ,. A  All  DAVIS, JIii . f' A (8 C CLAfllt. Jl4 , f' A MAI,. LEOOETT. ,. A H Q[W(Y WATIION , f' A . it4Ul I . l(NHAM Ill. f' A l Al'lftY W 8Ul41C8 , r A. 4 WYCS:L!FF Hl81T J l4 .. ,. A J AM(! 0 WAl40 H411111!1, r A J l\"tHlL l r MALCOM , I\" A J ,t,M(!I M SIMrSOH,,. A . J A.M(!I M S AXTON , r A .J 5H(,.H(l4 O jlfUSS(lL Ill. f' A OQ H,t,LO M IACON , f' A . WILL IAM THOMAS 8AXTUt . r A . WAlf11 4 ,.AUl.8ON II, ,. A . IAIIIIIIY (. COf'llH, t' .A .IIICHAltO 0 . TA.YL014 . ,. A .J OIH'H I HUlll9T , JII . f' A . HIZA8(TH lll081N WUIIJ,.AY . ,. A . CHltllTO,.IHIIII H(ll.11 . ,. A L AUlllA H(NIH(Y SMITH , ,. A . lt08(11T S SHAF(ft , f A . WIL LI AM ltol 0141FFIH Ill. ,. , A . M ICH AEL 5 . M0014( . f' A . DIAM( S WACS:(Y . f A WAL TEii M (l(l Ill . 1' A l(VIN A CR ASI . ,. A WI LLIAM A . WAOO(LL. JIit  f' A , Mr. Michael E. United States Gans Court U.S. Court \u0026 Custom 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 8UILO INO 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK , ARKA ... SAS n:o 1- l4tl TELEPHONE 50t - J7e-:o, I FAX ~O. 501 -l7 S- 214 7 September 8, 1997 of Appeals House 9 COTT .J l ,t,HC,t,I T ., \u0026 M -l A Y L( ,:0 11tt[Y  4 ~ O l(ltf I l(A.CW .1 111 J l( ( llltQWN ., 4 .J AW(I C 14C(II .J Iit  \u0026 M,t,IUIY 4 U OHT  4 ICOf T H ru c,c . ,- 4 .JOH N CL A'l\"\"OH Jl4HOOL,.\"'f OU Y ,t,l fO H W40( . , 4 it'I IC[ .:. 0Aflt0H(II ., 4. fO H I A ,- .10 H8 . !' .A Q ,t,V IO O Wll!IOH ,- 4 .J(FF .. (Y M WOO ..  . ,. 4 A\"\"O\"(W \" TU llfloj[Jt , ., .A Q ,t,VIO W U IIA.F . ,. A C All l A G i,.Al,..HOU\" JOH M C ;:(HOLE Y J \" A. Lll90 N !l lLI.VCS JO NA.MN C '10OSE VL7 II ,:HIIISTO r't-tEllt L AW SO -\" Gll(OO IIY O \"AYLOII TO NY L. WILC O X F\" AH C. HICS:WAM l (TTY; O(MOIIY IAIIIAll4 .J .IIAHO J A.W(I WI !Ml TH CUFFOIIJO W r'L U WC[-OAHIEl l \"l(lltllt lHG ~;: .. 4 LLISO H J :o,nfWH~ TOCO 4 a 1111 [LLE H W ,J W(HS HELEfrH \"II ~AYOEII J ASCH I . \"t(HOIIE-, 9UIAH )rif CHll.O ~9 o, c:uH W I LLIAM J 5W ITH 8 S ClAAl Wllll4W L. ... EAIIY ,  A WIL LI AM L. 4T TO M . II  4 {50 I 370  5C~ Re: Court of Appeals No. 97-1794, 97-1855 , 97-2394 and 97-2406 (Consolidated) Dear Mr. Gans: Brief CJH/k Enc. cc: I have enclosed for filing the Little Rock in the above-referenced matter. School \\..,. Christopher Heller All Counsel Dist:::-ic-:'s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al .ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al Nos. 97-1794EALR, 97-1855EALR, 97-2394EALR and 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John c. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE, CLARK 400 w. Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. ARGUMENT TllLZ o:, COll'l'D'l'S I. Th Diatriot Court Did ot Rely Upon Diaputed xaterial :raota ii . . l . . \"   6 II. Th Diatriot Court correctly :rollowed Recent Precedent III. Other Iaauea ltaiaed By AD And Intervenor Do ot warrant aeveraal CONCLUSION i 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '!'ULS 01' \u0026U'l'BOIU'!'XU DuPree v. Allla School Dist. No. 30 279 Ark. S.W. 2d 90 (1983) .... Jenkins v. Missouri 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21468 (8th Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . 18 . 1 LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996 ...... 5,9,10,16 LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) 18 ii I I BTA'l'DDl'I' OP ~ CASB I Th s1tt1g1nt AsJr1uaent I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Little Rock School District (LRSD), the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), collectively the \"Districts,\" brought this case to enforce the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case settlement Agreement. For the second time, this Court has been asked to interpret those parts of the Settlement Agreement which protect the Districts from the loss of State funding for programs which were funded at the tiae of the settlement and from retaliatory action by the State because of the settlement. Two separate and distinct coponents of the Settlement Agreement are at issue in this appeal. First, because of the relatively small amount of the financial settlement in this case, 1 the State of Arkansas agreed to continue to fund all of the programs for which the Districts received state funding at the time of the settlement: 1The Settlement Agreement requires the State of Arkansas to pay to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD a total of nearly one hundred thirty million dollars, including a twenty aillion dollar loan to LRSD. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 110-124. By comparison, the State of Missouri has paid the Kansas City School District approximately two hundred fifty million dollars for restoration of the district's physical facilities and approximately nine hundred fifty aillion dollars for educational and other prograJ1s. Jenkins y, Missouri. 1997 u.s. App. LEXIS 21468 at *22- *23 (8th Cir. 1997). This Court recently approved an agreement by which Missouri will be released from any further obligation upon the payment to the Kansas City School District of an additional three hundred twenty aillion dollars over three years . .lg. at *l. The Kansas City School District has fewer students than the Districts in this case. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II.E continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any paYJlent described elsewhere in this agreeaent, the State will continue to pay the following costs:      (6) The State' share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. ADE Appx. Vol.l, pp. 92-93. It is undisputed that the Districts are now required to fund certain programs, including teacher retirement and health insurance, which were funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the settlement agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p.385. The second provision of the Settleaent Agreement at issue in this case prohibits the state from retaliating against the Districts because of the aettleaent: II.L Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, p. 98. 2 2This section of the Settlement Agreement also prohibits legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate, but creates an exception for fair and rational adjustaents to the funding formula which have general applicability even if those adjustaents reduce the proportion of state aid to any of the Districts. The Districts have not claied that the State's new funding formula has had a substantial adverse impact on their ability to desegregate. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Th J'Undinq roraul Before 1995, the State bore the entire burden of funding the teacher retirement and health insurance programs for all Arkansas school districts. Direct state funding of teacher retirement and health insurance was discontinued by Act 1194 of 1995. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. Act 1194 also changed the State's aethod of appropriating funds for teacher retirement, health insurance and other programs fro a line it81l appropriation to a general appropriation. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. School districts are now required to pay the total cost of these programs. undisputed ract1 The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Teacher retirement and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State of Arkansas at the time of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. The Settlement Agreement requires the State to continue to pay its share of any and all programs for which the Districts received State funding at the tiae of the Settlement Agreeaent. ADE Appx. Vol. 1, pp. 92-93. One hundred thirty aillion dollars was appropriated for teacher retirement for the 1995-96 school year (ADE Appx. p. 387- 88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45) and before the new funding scheme was adopted, the Arkansas Department of Education requested $134,500.00 to fund teacher retirement for the 1996-97 school year (ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 387-88). Nearly forty-three million dollars was budgeted for \"public school employee insurance\" for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol 3, p. 352. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The state adopted a new funding formula, Act 917 of 1995, to take effect at the beginning of the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 321-50. A related law, Act 1194 of 1995, requires that school districts fund their own teacher retirement and health insurance programs beginning with the 1996-97 school year. ADE Brief, p. 7; ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 357-58. The new funding laws contain no specific appropriation for teacher retirement or health insurance. Most State funding under the new State funding system is distributed on a per ADM basis as equalized by the relative wealth of the funded district. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 376. Distributing State funds on an equalized basis aeans pursuant to a method that takes into account a district's local revenue and which gives aore State funds to poorer districts than richer districts. ADE Brief, p. 6. other xatt1r1 In its statement of the case, PCSSD has addressed and clarified several other matters contained in the ADE and Intervenor briefs. LRSD adopts PCSSD's position with respect to those matters. 8omRY OJ' UCl1JIID'l' The undisputed facts in the record are sufficient to uphold the district court's grant of swaary judgment. The district court's finding that funds which in past years were appropriated specifically for teacher retirement and health insurance are now included within a larger general appropriation is a logical 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I conclusion based on the undisputed evidence and not an imperaiasible resolution of a disputed fact. ADE's contention that there exists a dispute as to whether its new funding formula distributes funds on a~ per-student basis as opposed to an equalized per-student basis is also incorrect. Both district court opinions at issue here clearly show the district court's understanding that funds are distributed on a equalized per-student basis as the State contends. This case is governed by this Court's decision with respect to the workers' compensation program. LR.SD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). The actions of the State at issue here are very similar to the actions the State took to discontinue the State funded workers' copensation program and then to distribute workers' compensation funding on a per-student basis. The State's effort to redistribute teacher retirement and health insurance program funds on an equalized per student basis, rather than a basis which bears any rational relationship to the nwnber of employees in a school district or to the cost of those programs, should be rejected. The distribution of funds on an equalized per-student basis results in LRSD receiving State funding for a much smaller percentage of its teacher retirement and health insurance costs than the percentage received by other districts outside Pulaski County. Thia result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause of the Settlement Agreeaent was eant to prevent. ,Ig. at 1018. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UGUJODl'l' I. Th Di  t.riot Court Di4 IIOt ly Upon Di pute4 Material J'aot The Arkansas Department of Education contends that the district court ignored or resolved two factual issues which \"were central and essential to the Districts' claims.\" ADE Brief, p. 14. ADE described the \"two key disputed factual issues\" as follows: First, that there is \"an identifiable amount of dollars distributed as Equalization Funding that are 'ear-marked' to satisfy school districts' teacher retirement and health insurance matching\"; and second, that \"these identifiable and ear-marked 'retirement' and 'health insurance' funds are now being distributed on a pure per-student3 basis\" as opposed to an equalized per-student basis. ADE Brief, p. 16. There is, in fact, no issue at all with regard to the second \"factual dispute\" described by ADE. Both district court opinions below clearly adopted ADE's position. In its order granting summary judgment on the teacher retirement issue, the district court found that the State's new funding scheme \"distributes funds on a per-ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district.\" ADE Add. p. 9 (emphasis supplied). In its opinion granting SWllllary judgment on the health insurance issue, the district court held \"that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based 3ADE uses the terms \"per-ADM basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 16) and \"per-student basis\" (ADE Brief, p. 14). The terms are roughly equivalent. ADM means average daily membership. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling Districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a \"fair and rational\" adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Add. p. 17 (emphasis supplied). ADE's contention that there exists in this case some dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes funds on a \"pure per-student basis, as opposed to an equalized per student basis,\" is simply wrong. If there ever was a dispute, it has been resolved in ADE'\u0026 favor. The State's contention that there is a material dispute about whether the new funding formula distributes certain funds that are \"ear-marked\" for teacher retirement and health insurance is also insubstantial. Teacher retireaent and health insurance were programs fully funded by the State at the tiae of the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 385. There were specific appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. p. 387-88; Amicus Appx. pp. 143-45. Act 1194 of 1995 discontinued itemized State funding for teacher retireaent and health insurance beginning with the 1996-97 chool year. Finally, overall State funding for Arkanaaa public schools is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year by an amount which exceeds the total 1995-96 State payments for teacher retirement and health insurance. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. These established facts are sufficient to support the district court's finding that \"it is only logical to conclude that sums 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteaa for distribution to the Districts must be components of a fund that is forecast to be over $200,000,000.00 more than it was at the tiae of the Lake View decision.' ADE Add. p. 7. The state is contending that if the Districts cannot find a line item appropriation for teacher retirement and health insurance, then those programs, which have been funded by the state for decades, are not funded under the new school formula. The district court reached the only logical conclusion. Funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is contained in a large, unitemized appropriation under the new funding formula, and those funds are distributed on an equalized per-student basis rather than a basis which bears soae relation to the number of employees or actual costs. 4Even the intervenor\u0026 seem to see the logic of the district court's conclusion. In describing the change from the old program funding systell to the new student funding system, they say: The money is there but the requirement to pend a specific amount on employee health insurance, for example, is gone. Intervenor\u0026' Brief, p. 20 (emphasis supplied). The Intervenor\u0026 go on to say that our argwaent that the Settlement Agreement has been violated with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding ignores the fact that the funds are still provided  Intervenors' Brief, p. 21. 8 I I II. Th Pitrict \u0026r BntitlO To emunnn Judgment A A Matter I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Of Lay Thia case is governed by the terms of the settlement Agreement. In deciding the eaning of the terms in the Settlement Agreement, and their application to the facts in this case, the district court carefully followed the oat recent precedent established by this Court. As a result, the district court reached the correct conclusion under the law of this case. The precedent followed by the district court was established in LRSD y, Pesso, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). In that case, this court determined that State funding of workers' compensation was a \"program\" for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and held that funding the Districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state violates the Settlement Agreement . .lg. at 1017. Although the State added a slightly different twist in its effort to redistribute funding for the teacher retir .. ent and health insurance prograJU1, the facts are close enough to the workers' compensation case to warrant the same result. In the workers' compensation case, the districts argued that payment of workers' compensation costs was a \"program\" for which they received \"State funding\" at the time of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD y, Pesso. 83 F.3d at 1013, 1017 (8th cir. 1996). This Court agreed, but defined the \"program\" as \"equal state funding of workers' compensation for all school diatricts.\"5 .lg. 5NLR.so will argue that programs such as teacher retirement and health insurance which were funded by the State at the time of the settlement cannot be discontinued even by a change in State funding 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I at 1018. This court concluded that \"the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, \"fair and rational\" and of \"general applicability.\" l.s1- The State argues that the teacher retirement and health insurance programs have been eliminated for every district in the State and, because the \"change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" lg. However, aa with the worker' compensation case, there is more to the story. To eaae the transition fro a State funded to a district funded workers' compensation program, the State disbursed \"seed oney\" which paid about one-half of the workers' compensation expense statewide but only about one-third of the expense for the settling Districts. The disparity arose because the State used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. l.sl- This Court held that the distribution of workers' compensation \"seed money\" violated the settlement: Thia result is precisely what the antiretaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no oent that the State reached this result in a aathematically consistent anner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County districts in the same percentage as it does statewide. which is determined to be fair, rational, and generally applicable. LRSD agrees with that argument. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In thia case, the legialature ha said that beginning with the 1996-97 school year funding for teacher retirement and health insurance is a district, rather than a State, responsibility. The state has also moved from a line item appropriation which shows specific funding for health insurance and teacher retirement to a general appropriation of funds to be distributed, for the most part, on an equalized per-student basis. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 317-366. Statewide, the amount of money which flows through the public school fund is greater for the 1996-97 school year than it was for the 1995-96 school year. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 352-53. ADE argues that because none of the aoney in the expanded public school fund is \"ear-aarked\" for teacher retirement or health insurance, this case does not fit within this Court's ruling which required fair distribution of workers' compensation seed money. ADE Brief, p. 19-22. All the State has really done is to strip away the labels from the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The funding for those prograas has been shifted from a line item appropriation to a general appropriation. Funds for teacher retirement and health insurance are now combined with other funds to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis as \"equalization funding.\" ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 352. The State is playing a shell gaae, contending that if the Districts cannot find the pea, it does not exist. The district court was not fooled. It was clear to the district court that \"what used to be funded as a line item was 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I folded into the 1996-97 appropriation for State equalization funding.w ADE Ad. pp. 8-9. Simple logic dictates wthat sums that were previously either paid directly by the State or appropriated as line iteas for distribution to the districts ust be component of [the new equalization) fund .... w ADE Ad., p.7. This Court should affira the di trict court. If the State can avoid responsibility for continued funding of the teacher retirement and health insurance programs simply by moving the funds into a general appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per-student basis, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding and this Court's decision concerning workers' compensation seed aoney will have been rendered meaningless. This is not a case where the State has treated all Arkansas school districts the same with respect to teacher retirement and health insurance funding. The State has changed the way it distributes funding for those prograas in a way that favors districts outside Pulaski County. Instead of simply paying the actual costs of those programs statewide, the State has elected to distribute on an equalized per-student basis the funds which would have gone to pay for the teacher retirement and health insurance programs. The impact of the State's distribution of teacher retirement funds according to the number of students rather than the number 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of teachers in LR.SD can be easily shown.' The State budgeted $130,000,000.00 to pay teacher retirement statewide for the 1995- 96 fiscal year. ADE Appx. Vol., 3, p. 352. The average daily membership for the State for the 1995-96 school year was 443,516 students. A per student distribution of those retirement funds would yield $293.11 per student. Distribution of that amount based on LRSD's average daily aeabership of 22,385 students would result in a state teacher retireaent payaent of $6,561,267.00. This is only about two-thirds of the aaount actually paid by the State to LR.SD for the 1995-96 school year when the calculation was done on a per-teacher rather than per-student basis. The State appropriation of $130,000,000.00 for the 1995-96 school year should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the teacher retirement program statewide. Before the establishment of the new funding program, ADE sought an appropriation of $134,500,000.00 to fund the statewide teacher retirement program for the 1996-97 school year. ADE Appx., Vol. 3, pp. 387-88. That amount also should have been sufficient to fund the entire cost of the statewide teacher retirement program. The result of the state aoving teacher retirement funds into a general appropriation and distributing those funds on an 'we understand that ADE uses an equalized per-student distribution rather than a pure per-student distribution. Largely because its aillage rate is the fifth highest in the state (ADE Appx., Vol. 4, p. 583), LR.SD is a relatively rich school district for the purposes of the new funding formula. Accordingly, LR.SD would actually receive less funding on an equalized per-student basis than is shown in this example. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I equalized per-student basis is that LRSD will receive two-thirds or less of its teacher retirement costs while the average funding level statewide exceeds one hundred percent of teacher retirement costs. The results are the same for employee health insurance. The estimated statewide health insurance contribution for the 1996-97 school year is $42,815,000.00. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245 and Vol. 3, p. 352. This money is distributed through the new funding formula on an equalized per-student basis which bears no rational relationship to a particular district's costs for employee health insurance. As a result, the State paid 109.95 percent of the cost of employee health insurance statewide excluding Pulaski County. ADE Appx. Vol. 2, p. 245. The average funding in the Pulaski county school districts is 71.39 percent. LRSD receives only 53.41 percent of its cost of employee health insurance payments. The district court correctly held \"that because the new funding scheme does not consider the number of eligible employees but instead is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district, requiring the settling districts to pay health insurance matching from equalization or local funds is not a 'fair and rational' adjustment to the funding formula.\" ADE Ad., p. 17. III. other 11,v IAi IY N\u003eI  xntervenor1 Do 1ot warrant lYral ADE and the Intervenor\u0026 have raised several other issues, none of which warrants reversal of the district court opinions. Both appellants contend that the new funding formula is 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I beneficial to the Pulaski County School districts since they received aor State funding this year than they did last year. The Intervenor\u0026 completely misstate the District' claim: The Districts allege that the total funding is less under the new funding formula than under the prior funding foraula. Intervenor Brief, p. 8. In fact, the Districts argued that they receive less than they would haye received had the same amount of money been distributed for the 1996-97 school year under the old Act 34 formula instead of the new Act 917 formula. Intervenor Appx., p. 68. The Intervenor\u0026 seem to think that the district court resolved a conflict between the Districts' position that they would have received a greater amount of funding for the 1996-97 school year had the available funds been distributed under the old Act 34 formula and ADE' position that the Districts received more State aid this year than last year. Intervenor Brief, pp. 8- 9. There is no conflict. The district court accepted PCSSD's position \"that its total State funding in 1996-97 will be less under the new foraula than it would haye been under the old.\" ADE Ad., p. 12. ADE's exhibit which purports to show that the Pulaski County districts will receive more State funding for the 1996-97 school year than they did for the 1995-96 school year (Intervenor Appx., p. 170) is not in conflict with PCSSD's position that it would have received aore money for 1996-97 under Act 34 than it does under the new funding scheme. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADE seems to admit that any increase received by the Pulaski county districts for the 1996-97 school year was proportionately smaller than increases received by other Arkansas school districts (ADE Brief, p. 25), but argues that the settling districts are \"winners\" under the new formula so their increased state aid \"should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them.\" ADE Brief, p. 24. First of all, the Settlement Agreement requirement of continued funding of existing programs does not require a finding of discriminatory intent in order to prove a violation, only a discriminatory impact. The workers' compensation issue was decided by this Court without any discussion of ADE'a intent. LRSD y, PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). Second, a simple hypothetical shows the flaw in ADE's reasoning. Assume that a large amount of money was added to the public school fund and that ADE intentionally devised a formula to minimize the amount of aoney that would go to the Pulaski County achool districts. Ass\\llle also that as a result education funding doubled statewide under a formula which increased funding for the Pulaski County school districts by only one percent. Would the Pulaski County school districts be precluded from claiming a violation of the Settlement Agreement simply because the small increase in their funding made them \"winners\"? The Intervenor\u0026 claim that the Pulaski County districts are seeking \"to divert millions of dollars from students outside of 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County districts.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. That contention is completely unsupported and is absolutely untrue. The state's 1994-95 expenditure for public schools was only forty-eight percent of the total net State general revenues. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, p. 324. The state's practice has been to transfer funds from general revenues to the public school fund in order to pay the costs associated with the Settlement Agreement. ADE Appx. Vol. 3, pp. 359-60. The Pulaski County districts did not ask the district court to divert any money from districts outside Pulaski County. There is no reason that the funds necessary for the State to meet its settlement obligations should come from the public school fund rather than from general revenues. The Intervenors argue that the Districts do not care about \"equal treatment\" of students and are seeking to enforce the Settlement Agreement \"simply because they believe they need more money.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 10. They are apparently forgetting that the Settlement Agreement provides a remedy for years of state imposed segregation. Had the state adopted a policy of equal treatment rather than segregation decades ago, we would not have this lawsuit today. The State cannot avoid its responsibilities under the Settl-ent Agreement simply by contending the Arkansas Constitution requires equal treatment. The response to that ar(JUllent is found in Judge Arnold's concurrence in a previous appeal in this case: The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, ubstantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the state, DuPree Y, Alma School Dist. No, 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 s.w. 2d 90 (1983), and with a statute iapl8lllenting thi opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann. SS 80-850.10 - 80-850.22. Thia argwaent is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. ART. VI. , cl. 2 , the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. LRSD y, PCSSD. 778 F.2d 404, 437 n. 1. (8th Cir. 1985) (Arnold, J. concurring). The Intervenor\u0026 point out, correctly, that funds paid to the Districts by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in determining the appropriateness of public school funding under state law. Intervenor' Brief, p. 16. Nothing in state or federal law requires that uch fund be included in any calculation to determine the equity of a state school funding scheme. Inexplicably, however, the Intervenor\u0026 go on to argue that \"(t)he State funding syst8Jll will be put at risk when compliance with the federal range ratio requires additional funding to other districts as a result of any increase in funds to the Little Rock School District which will result from the district court's order.\" Intervenor Brief, p. 17. This argument is simply wrong and is in conflict with the position of the Intervenors, taken on the previous page of their brief, that funds paid by reason of the Settlement Agreement are not included in the calculation of the federal range ratio. 18 I I I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1669","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School facilities","School employees","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula"],"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/1669"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED V. LR-C-82-866 SEP 3 1997 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS omc OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORIN6INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PCSSD SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA The PCSSD for its motion states: INTERVENORS 1. As a result of the change from Act 34 to Act 917, including the overall funding increases which accompanied Act - 917, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 in State aid this past year as compared to what it would have received had Act 34 continued in existence at the higher appropriation levels. In contrast, the average increase in State aid per district was 12.64% under Act 917. 2. The case law, the orders of this Court, and the Settlement Agreement prohibit this disparity. 3. This Court should order that the State aid received by the PCSSD this past school year be increased to the state average increase of 12.64%, an increase of $6,496,896. 4. In the alternative, this Court should award the PCSSD the $5.5 million it lost when one compares Act 34 outcomes to Act 917 outcomes. # 5. This motion is accompanied by an updated Affidavit of Dr. Donald Stewart, together with accompanying exhibits, additional exhibits, and by a memorandum brief. The PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material facts and orders of this Court. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that it be funded for the previous year at the level of the State average or, in the alternative, that it be awarded the sums it lost when Act 917 replaced Act 34, for its costs, attorneys' fees and all proper relief. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By-;n_.xJ_~ M .... ~~= Jones I}o/ (76060) At~for Pcpn 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September J- , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J : j hsl 0S0 . 030 umuel Jn 3 PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTL!:MENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) EXHIBIT I .L - K. District Budgets The Districts may  utilize the-  receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to balance previous years' budgets and if this is done, neither the previous year's deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or .th is settlement. The State will enact - no legislation which has a substantia~ adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages _due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The - motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 98 10 fN TI-IE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR rnE EIGHTI-1 CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLANTS V. LITIT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. APPELLEES Nos. 97-1794EALR. 97-1855EALR. 97-2394EALRand 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OPENING BRIEF I WINSTON BRYANT, Attorney General By: TIMOlHY G. GAUGER Arkansas Bar No. 95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l ( 50 l) 682-2007 EXHIBIT Finally, and most important, the changes in funding of teacher retirement and health insurance matching differ significantly from the workers' compensation issue in that, unlike-the change in workers' compensation funding (which involved a change in only one discrete aspect of the funding scheme while leaving the rest of the scheme unchanged) the district court had before it a wholesale change in the funding scheme, in effect an entirely new funding system designed from scratch. ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit At the very minimum, the fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 24 'llnitea States Court of ~ppeafs for tk 'Eigl,,tli Circuit NO. 97-1794 ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL APPELLANT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL APPELLEES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge ~ppe{{ant's tJJrie,f JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR. #66040 THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 Attorney for Appellant 111 School Districts EXHIBIT I 3 THE DISTRICT COURTS ORDER SHOULD BE REVERSED AS A MATIER OF LAW The Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment challenges that portion of the new school funding formula they view as unfavorable while ignoring other portions from which they would admittedly benefit. The Districts receive more state aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Greene Declaration, App. 170. By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled.4 While the Settlement Agreement permits \"Fair - and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability . . . \". Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement March, 1997, Add. 18, the Districts suggest, by implication, such an adjustment should not apply to them simply because they believe they need more money. There is probably not a school district in Arkansas that does not believe it needs more money. However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. Du Pree and lake View. 4 DuPree v. Alma, 65 l S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 ( 1983). App. 172 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SC~OOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Don Stewart and I am Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs of the PCSSD. Attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit is information I received from the Arkansas Department of Education which permitted me to compare total state aid received by each school district in - 1995-96 to total state aid they received for 1996-97. From this information, I was able to prepare Exhibit 11 B11 which demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net increase in State aid this year of only 1.12 percent. This compares to a state total of 12.09 percent increase per district which percentage rises to 12.64 percent when the PCSSD State aid is subtracted from the state-wide totals. Attached as Exhibit \"C\" is a letter the PCSSD received from Mr. Kunkel, Coordinator for Local Fiscal Services requesting the return of growth funding in the amount of $81,165. As requested, this sum of money has been returned by the PCSSD to the State and the PCSSD will receive no growth funding for 1996-97. However, were loss funding still in place, the PCSSD would be eligible for loss funding for the 1996-97 school year. Exhibit 11 0 11 is the latest printout received by the PCSSD from EXHIBIT I 4 - the State. The total sum set forth was adjusted by the State to reflect the overpayment of che $81,165. I certify.that che calculations set forth in these various exhibits were e1~her directly performed by the Arkansas Department of Education or were calculaced from databases furnished to me by the Arkansas Department of Education. It is entirely possible chat some of the State aid levels for some of the districts reflected in Exhibit \"A\" may have changed since the State furnished its dacabase to the PCSSD. However, for purposes of the present analysis and claim, the PCSSD believes that the calculations and conclusions set forth in the various exhibics are reasonably accurate. If, however, the Arkansas Department of Education desires that the PCSSD utilize updated information, the - PCSSD will be more chan willing to comply as soon as such information is furnished to it from the Arkansas Department of Education. FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI day SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN of A-U,,4 ,-r-, 1997. J My ComIT\\ission Expires: .: JZ\u003c.,-'Ulf; ;_') -~ QC k-l I --- TO before me, a notary public, this2Y NotarPublic 2 -1.,. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 I LEA i COUNTY 101,AHKANSAS 102 AHKANSAS 104 1 ARKANSAS 105 ARKANSAS 201 ASHLEY 202 ASHLE'Y 20JASHLEY 302 BAXTF.R 30:1 RAXTER 304 RAXTF.R 401 RENTON 402 RENTON 40:1 DENTON 404 BENION 405 BENTON 406 BENTON 407 BENTON 501 BOONE 502 BOONE 503 BOONE 504 BOONE 505 BOONE 506 AOONE 601 BRADLEY fi02 BRADLEY 701 CALHOUN 801 CARROLL R02 CARROLL R03 CARRO~L 901 CHICOT 'l02 CHICOT 903 CHICOT 1002 CLARK ! 1003 CLARK 1101 C:I AY I 1104 CIAY I 110fi CLAY 1701 CLEnllRNE DISTRICT OE'WITT GILLE'Tl STlllTGART HUMPHREY CROSSETT FOUNTAIN HILL HAMBURG COTTER MOUNTAIN HOME NORFORK RENTONVILLE DECATUR GENTRY GRAVETTE ROGERS SILOAM SPRINGS PEA RIDGE ALPENA BERGMAN HARRISON OMAHA VALLEY SPRINGS LEAD HILL HERMITAGE WARREN HAMPTON RERRYVILLE FIIHEKA SPRINGS /\u003c,HErN FOREST I1irRMOTT IEIIIJORA 11 AKFSIOE AHKAl\u003eElPHIA c;uRDON lr.ORNING PI\u003c;r.0TT I !CLAY COUNTY !coNr.ono AOM FOR I 1995-1996 JQ 1,278 94 287. 10 2,268 54 288 83 2,760 47 283 86 1,812 03 60640 3,845 95 500 22 5,107 53 553 15 1,147 53 1,284 30 8,656 66 2,510 38 910 51 474 74 820 99 2,894 62 385 11 863 22 404 14 607 37 1,763 43 917 27 1,562 17 1108 31 1,232 84 1,012 81 935 13 1,220 59 2,407 09 R93111 1.2:10 2R 1,001 97 736 R6 473 16 AOMFOR 1996-1997 I I NUMBER PERCENT CHANGE ' CHANGE 1st Q 1,2:12 17 285 22 2,211 .18 280 02 2,720 43 299.19 1,777 53 619 65 3,898 14 518.94 5.444 47 589 99 1,144 64 1,30560 9,375 04 2,594 68 946 35 50802 808 48 2,81554 372 62 89981 384 671 594 09 1,756 02 901 031 1,590 96 8011351 1.23996 : 1,002 761 915 21 1 1,163 43 2,442 37 I 918 351 1.248 49 1 1,039 74 I 72995, 468 )CJ (46771 (1 BR (57 36 (8 81 (4004 15 33 (34 50 13 25 52 19 18 72 33694 36 84 (2 89 21 .30 718 38 84 30 35 84 33 28 (12 51 (7908 (12 49 36 59 (19 47 (13 28 (7 41 (16 24 28 79 0 04 7 12 (1005 (19 92 (57 16 35 28 24 54 1R 21 37 77 (f, 91 (4 77 .3 66%1 -065% -2 53% -3 05% -1.45% 5.40% -1 .90% 219% 1.36% 3 74% 660% 666% -025% 166% 8 30% J 36% 3 94% 701% -152% -2 .73% -3 24% 4.24% -4 .82% -219% -042% -1 77% 164% 000% 0 58% -099% -2 13% .4 68% 1 47% 2 75% 1 48% :i 77% 0 94% -101% TOTAL 1995-1996 STATE AID S:J .041.llfi5 1 $610,743 S5.055.029 $886.831 $6,293,054 $881,650 $5,552.298 $1,830,298 S7.724.759 S1 .437 .262 $9,575,525 S1.525.271 S2, 157,190 S2, 174,171 $19,498,428 $6,005,872 S2.765,315 S1 .542.232 $2,638,593 $6,575,634 $1 ,265.575 $2,543.767 $1,202,421 $1 ,672,214 $4 ,941 ,446 $1,993,857 S4 ,223,025 $546,953 $3,611.2151 S3.272.036 S2.76R,6:l8 I $3 ,364,464 $6,019,989 $2,291 ,087 S3. 133.616 $:\u003e, 769.~\u003e46 s2.096. :100 $ 1,49:1 ,6761 TOT. SELECT. 1996-97 AID 12-27-96 S2.9138.74!l : S735.795I $5,6:15,639 $840,659 $7 ,015.296 $915,885 S5.309,8116 $1 ,915,093 $8,699,379 $1 ,463,375 $12,814,870 $1 ,642,592 $2,696.660 S2,716.828 $24,269.301 S7,207, 164 S3,254,057 Sl ,742,722 S2,757,022 S6,662,071 S1 .181,713 S2,931, 110 Sl.100,367 Sl ,675,076 S5,174,627 S2.077,037 S4,270,083 S850.028 $3,719.161 $3,150.098 S2,724,351 S3,413.368 S6,430,653 S2,540,432 S3.407.51l6 $:J, 117,026 $2,135,236 $1 ,532,464 ADO. BASE FUNDING $~,A .ll91 , so 1 S230.360 S2,195 S176.954 $8,954 S151 ,191 so so $32,806 so so S184,411 so so so S40,470 S75,857 S265,098 so S122,656 so S24.500 S200,713 S26,465 S173,331 I S26,6531 S157,437 $102,722 $8,631 $66,162 so $23,556 S91 ,651 S104 ,682I $65,2131 S:17 ,663 GROWTH FACILITY FUNDING so: S16,661 I' so so so so so S6,227 so so S235,001 so S37.266 S46,518 S192,472 S39,737 S55,653 S19,573 S18,502 so so S13,446 so so so S14,122 so $17,293 so so so so so so so so so $8, 1171 - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE: 96TO97 WK4 rJ ~ FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 101 ARKANSAS DEWITT $68.436 $15.772 S:l .131 .648 $119.71131 295% 102 ARKANSAS GILLETT $80.642 S3.468 Sfl36.566 $225.82:lj 36911% 104 ARKANSAS STlJTTGART $51.458 $5.917.457 S862.428 17 06% 105 ARKANSAS HlJMPHREY S802 so S643.6r\u003e6 (S43.175 -4117%1 201 ASHLEY CROSSETT S94.658 S7.286.908 S993.854 J 15 79% I 202 ASHLEY FOUNTAIN HILL S1.253 S17.171 S14 .704 S957.967 S76.317 ; 866%1 203 ASHLEY HAMBURG S93.117 S77 .814 S5.632.008 S79.710J 1 44%1 302 RAXTER COTTER S48.873 S1.970.193 S139.895; 7 64% 303 RAXTER MOUNTAIN HOME S530 S60.805 S8.760.714 Sl .035.955I 13 41% 304 RAXTER NORFORK $-48,651 S36,349 S1,581 ,181 S143.9191 1001% 401 BENTON RENTONVILLE S101,882 S13,151 ,753 $3.576,2281 37 35% 402 RENTON DECATUR $20,593 $1 ,663,185 $137,9141 904% 403 BENTON GENTRY S32,257 S2.766,205 S609,015 28 23% 404 BENTON GRAVETTE S31,613 S1 ,586 S2,980,956 $806,785 37 11% 405 BENTON ROGERS S205.440 S24.667.213 S5. 168,785 26.51% 406 BENTON SILOAM SPRINGS S140,034 $7,386,935 S1,381,063 2300% 407 BENTON PEA RIDGE S64, 108 SJ,373,818 S608,503 2200% 501 BOONE ALPENA S42,062 S25,930 $1,870,757 $328,525 21 30%1 502 BOONE RERGMAN S35.430 S63.764 S2,950,595 $312,002 1162% 503 BOONE HARRISON $46,396 $6,973,565 $397,931 605% 504 BOONE OMAHA $45.434 S32,278 $1,259,425 ($6,150 -0.49% 505 BOONE VALLEY SPRINGS S12.890 S66.271 SJ. 146,375 $602,608 23.69% 506 ROONE LEAD HILL S30,805 S21,523 $1,152,695 ($49.726 -4 14% 601 ARADLEY HERMITAGE $62,907 $23,748 $1.786,231 $114,0171 682% 602 BRADLEY WARREN S32.799 S60.540 SS,466,679 $527,233 1067% 701 CALHOUN !HAMPTON $31,065 S12,271 $2,162,960 $169,103 848% 801 CARROLL IRFRRYVILLE S43.871 $79,194 $4,566.479 $343,454 813% 802 CARRO~L jrtJREKA SPRINGS S8.985 so S904,959 $356,006 6545% 803 CARROLL \\\u003c;IIEEN FOREST S37.485 S108,936 S4.023.01!l $405,604 1122% 901 CHICOT 1 nERMOTT $26,518 $85,433 S3.364.771 $92,735 2 83% I 902 CHICOT !FlJllORA S64.716 S34.381 $2,832.079 $63,441 2 29% .. I 903 CHICOT IL AKESIDE S58.856I S102,935 S3.641,321 $256,857 7 59% i 1002 CLARK IAIIKADELPHIA $25,051 SB8,711 S6,544,415 $524,426 8 71% I 1003 CLARK lc;uRDON S9,365 S53,902 $2,627,255 $336,166 1101 14 67% CLAY C:ORNING $26.772 $3,526,009 S392,393 12 52% 1104 CLAY PIGGOTT $23,729 S3.245,437 S475,891 17 18% 1106 CLAY CLAY COUNTY S12,924 I S42,447 $2,255,820 $159,520 761% 1201 CLEBURNE CONCORD S22,99ol $26,768 S1,628,002 S134,326 899% - - COMPARISON or lOTAL STATE AID l()fl!J-96 TO 1996-97 FILE. 96T097 WK4 ((') ~ ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADD. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1991 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT 30 1sI a STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING 1202 CLEAUHNE l1tERER SPRINGS 1.47078 1,536 52 65 74 4 47% , S:I.0ll0 .91ill S:l .fl1'l.Dll so $27.4:18 1203 CLERIJRNE I ' Sl ,9:12.717 S:17 .564 ' S13.27'l QUITMAN 631 .81 626 82 (4 99 -079% Sl ,830.0551 1204 CLERIIRNE WESl SH)E 51809 547 .44 29 35 567% S964,458 ' S 1,233,844 so S14 ,844I 1205 CLEOURNE WILBURN 194 03 219 37 25.34 13 06% S700,645 S712,880 S31,281 sol 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND 351 37 338.20 (13 17 .3 75% S919,711 S888.531 S6.660 sol 1303 CLEVELAND RISON 674 04 658.43 (15.61 -2 32% S2. 108. 141 S2.043,272 S54 .513 so 1304 CLEVELAND WOODLAWN 50698 517 64 10.66 2.10% Sl ,536.283 Sl ,794.266 S74 ,759 S21,619 1401 COLUMBIA EMERSON 407 .21 398.07 (914 -2.24% S559,099 S557.478 so so 1402 COLUMRIA MAGNOLIA 3.135 87 3,139.38 3 51 011% S7 ,495.865 S8.658.396 S276.956 so 1403 COLUMBIA MCNEIL 329.63 324.71 (4 92 -1.49% Sl .057,953 S974,465 S28.688 so 1404 COLUMAIA TAYLOR 30940 284.92 (24 .48 .7 91% S786,832 S730,722 so S10,361 1406 COLUMAIA WALDO 535 42 523 33 (12.09 -2 26% Sl,685.013 Sl .645.579 S30. 159 so 1407 COLUMBIA WALKER 244 .18 24687 269 110% S825.379 S805.851 so S2.870 1503 CONWAY NEMOVISTA 413 33 403 96 (9.37 -2 27% Sl .381,667 Sl.337.212 S45.167 SB,718 1505 CONWAY WONOERVIEW 480 38 491 04 1066 2 22% Sl.492.467 Sl ,624,610 S37 ,603 S18.617 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO 2,638 42 2,663 91 2549 097% S7. 116,952 S7,493, 193 S259,518 so 1601 CRAIGHEAD BAY 617 32 649 35 32 03 519% Sl ,896,161 S2,092,589 S62,491 so 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE 1,428 36 1,515 03 86 67 607% S4 .094,071 S .773,608 S184.145 S21 .463 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAND 937 21 99688 5967 6 37% S2.866.614 S3.230.607 S109.517 S22.197 1605 CRAIGHEAD BUFFALO ISLAND GEN 91166 894111 (16 85 -1 85% S2.579,779 S2,610.054 S76,029 S10,644 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO 4,700 51 4,733 68 33 17 071%1 SI0,021,324 S11.322,739 S181 ,0JJ S51 .856 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON 2,076 87 2.147 OJ 70 16 J 38% $4 ,517,292 S5.271.245I S237,969 S52.102 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEYVIEW 1,060 47 1,11602 55 55 524% S2.835,001 S3.516.569 S187,903 S63.758 1611 CRAIGHEAl1 1 RIVERSIDE 821 92 846 54 24 62 300% S2,481,685 S2.645.855; S58.842 so 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA 2,622 32 2.64104 1 18 72 071% S8.511 ,288 S8,957,302 $340,832 S61,158 1702 CRAWFORl1 ' r.EOARVILLE 847 08 889 77 42 69 504% S3,041 ,769 $3,032,572 S46.935 sol 1703 CRAWFORD M()UNTAINOURG 789 96 829 601 39 64 ' 502% S2,677.202 $2,727,452 $44 ,8311 so 1704 CRAWFO,~D ' MIii flERRY 47:1 23 495 13 21 ool 4 63% Sl ,442.:192 Sl ,645,334 S51 .020 S12.612! 1705 CRAWF'oRD VI\\N flllHFN 5.00'l 96 5.131 03 , 121 071 2 42% S14 .433.8:J6 S15,814,880 S516,736 S71.779 ; 11101 CRITTENDEN Clll\\WI OROSVII IE 408 11 :160 251 (47 86 -11 7:1% $1 ,255.364 1 $949,652 $0 so ., I 1802 CRITTENDEN rllHLE 919 17 922 97 3 80 0 41% S2,940,458 $12.053 so I $2,711 ,485, 1803 CRITTENI IFN WFST MEMPHIS 5,979 29 5,958 04 (21 25 -036% $17.007.315 i $18,381,695 $542,658 so 1804 CRITTENDEN MI\\HION 2,859 21 , 2,868 07 8 80 0 31% $8,166,542 S8.826.606 S270.345 S25,272 : 1805 CRITTENOEN TURRELL 462 26 465 74 J 48 0 75% Sl ,558.612 Sl ,496,608 S:18.414 S0 i 1901 !CROSS ;CROSS COUNTY 777 92 733 78 1 (44 14 -567% S2.101 . 192 Sl ,927.532 so S6.733 1 1903,CROSS ' PARKIN 563 67 549 32 (14 35 -2 55% Sl .680,802 Sl ,643,5031 S10,695 so, 1905 CROSS 1 wYNNE 2.8:19 60 2.838 84 I (0 76 -003% Sll .090.531 1 $8,8411.356 S286.813 soi 2001 jOALLAS \\cARTHAGE 198 68 187 281 (11 40 -5 74% S471 .501 S457,611 so S5.234 , - - - -:r COMPARISON or TOTAL S rA TE AID 1995 96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96T097 WK4 FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CHANGE CHANGE LEA COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. I 1202 iCLEBlJRNE HEBER SPRINGS $55.502, S3.902.07R 1 $821 .110, 2665% 1203 ,CLERIJRNE OlllTMAN $30,666 $7,807 $2,022.053  $191 ,998 1049% 1204 CLEAIJRNE WEST SIDE $53,804 $1 ,652 $1,304 .144 1 $339.6861 35 22% , 12051CLERIJRNE WILBURN $61 ,289 $14 ,506 $3,193 $823.149 $122,504 1 17 48%1 1301 CLEVELAND KINGSLAND $41 ,413 so S936.604 $16,8931 184% 1303 , CLEVELAN[) RISON S55,996 S59,892 $2,213.673 S 105,532 501%1 1304 \\CLF.VF.LAND WOODLAWN S34 ,381 S41 ,809 Sl .966,834 S4 30,551 28 03%1 S16,9971 I 1401 COLIIMAIA EMERSON S18,618 so $576,096 3 04%1 1402 I COLI IMBIA MAGNOLIA S59.266 $8.994.6181 S 1,498. 753! 1999%1 I 1403 1COUJMRIA !MCNEIL S12,379 so Sl ,015,5321 ($4 2.421 -4 01%1 1404 ICOlllMRIA TAYLOR $22.142 S7.652 so $770,877 , ($15.955_ -2 03%1 1406 COLlJMRIA WALDO S5.626 S16,490 Sl ,697.854 S12.841 0 76% 1407 COllJMRIA WALKER S5,888 S9.895 S35,636 S860.140 S34.761 4 21%1 1~,03 CONWAY NEMOVISTA S37,715 $46,919 $1 ,475,731 S94 ,064 681% j 1505 CONWAY WONlJERVIEW S59,230 S22,379 $1.762.439 S269,972 1809% 1507 CONWAY SO CONWAYCO $26.843 S142,261 $7,921,815 $804,863 1131% 1601 CRAIGHEAD RAY S3,812 $59,807 $2,218.699 S322.538 17.01% 1602 CRAIGHEAD WEST SIDE S72.084 $113,321 $5.164 ,624 Sl .070.553 2615% 1603 CRAIGHEAD BROOKLAN[) $13,971 , S76,951 $3,453,243 S586,629 20 46% 1605 CRAIGHEAD RUFFALO ISLAND CEN S20.736 $2,717,463 $137,684 534% 1608 CRAIGHEAD JONESBORO S86,973 $11,642,601 $1 ,621,277 1618% 1611 CRAIGHEAD NETTLETON $55,304 $5,616,620 $1 ,099,328 24 34% 1612 CRAIGHEAD VALLEY VIEW $2,477 $59,322 $3,830.029 $995.028 3510% 1613 CRAIGHEAD RIVERSIDE $39,301 $2.743,998 $262,313 1057% 1701 CRAWFORD ALMA $581 ,542 $9,940,834 $1 ,429,546 16.80% 1702 CRAWFORD CEDARVILLE $44,387 $25,9231 $54,410 $3,204 ,227 $162.458 5 34% 1703 CRAWFORO MOUNTAINBURG $58,698 : $111 ,549 $2,942.530 $265.328 991%1 1704 CRAWFO~O MllLBERRY I ' S37,307 $1 ,746.273 $303,881 21 07%, $27 ,7561 1705 CRAWf:ORD VANRUREN $445,044 $16,848,439 $2,414.603 16 73%1 I 1801 CRITTENDEN !CRAWFORDSVILLE $16,137 so $993,545 ($261,819 -2066% .. I 1802 CRITTENDEN ;FARLE I $26.092 S2.978.603 $267,118 985%  I 1803 CRITTENOEN WEST MEMPHIS $161 .569 S1 9.085,9 22 $2,078,607 12 22%1 I 1804 CRITTENDEN ' MARION I I $214,276 $9.336,499 $1 ,169,957 14 :l:1%1 11105 CRITTENDEN TURRELL S60.165 $1.595, 187 $36,575 2 35%1 1901 ( ROSS I CROSS COUNTY $69,11 21 $14 .512 $2.017,889 ($83,303 .3 96%1 1903 ;CROSS f'ARKIN I $1 .654.1981 1WYNNE I so ($26,604 -158%1 1905,CROSS $174 ,205 $9,309.374 $1 ,218.843 2001 OALLAS \\r:ARTIIAGE $199,509 1 $2,627 1507%1 S6fi5. IR1 $193,680 41 08% COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 \\0 0... ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA I COUNTY DISTRICT ]Q 1st a -1 70\"J STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I 2002 [)Al I AS ' SJ .ll8J.90'l S4 .0114 .2 71 1 S1fi9.1118 so / FORDYCE 1,377 81 1.)5443 (23 311 2003 OALLAS SPARKMAN 333.65 316 16 (17 49 -5 24% S907.5361 S828.2114 so 1 so 1 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY 162.72 169 29 6 57 4 04% S156.603  $118.263 sol S23.689 2102 OF.SHA DEL TA SPECIAL 305 82 286 14 (1968 -644% $812,468 $668.098 soi so 2104 DESHA DUMAS 2.126 29 2,088 59 (37.70 -1.77% $6,604 ,223 S6,528.573 $196.515 so 2105 OESHA MCGEHEE 1,459 23 1,431 .35 (27 88 -191% $4 ,232.312 S4 ,520.753 $119.703 so 2202 DREW r\u003eREW CENTRAL 1.176 66 1,210 20 33 54 2 85% S3.579.087 S3.629,443 $47 ,591 so 2203 DRF.W MONTICELLO 2.137 57 2,128.17 (9.40 -0.44% $6,173.807 S6,707.646 S82.688 S50,857 2301 FA\\JLKNER CONWAY 7,141 52 7.365 57 224 05 3.14% S18.063,372 S20,290.719 so so 2303 FAULKNER GREENBRIER 2,015 78 2,082.74 6696 3.32% S6.497 ,965 S7, 128.424 S190.242 S57.428 2304 FA\\JLKNER GUY-PERKINS 271 .96 291 90 1994 7.33% S884.028 S997,906 so S12.834 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER 815.11 861 .46 46.35 5.69% S2,607, 185 S2.852,496 S99,563 S22,781 2306 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA 346 72 364 99 18.27 5 27% S1 .053.849 S1.155.81J S26.152 S2.834 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA 2,024.48 2,166 28 141 .80 7 00% S6,962.519 S7.619,846 S13.976 S70,726 2401 FRANKLIN AL TIIS -OENNING 278 88 278 08 (080 -029% S687.461 S678.552 so S3,550 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON 804 07 794 06 (10.01 -1 24% S2,304.242 S2.500.026 S34 .0J0 S21 ,992 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE 590 22 593 52 J JO 056% S1 ,558.842 S1 .659.994 S65,085 S16,49J 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK 1,515 45 1,561 54 46 09 J 04% SJ,913.415 S4 .400.107 S114 ,560 so 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW 272.16 279 751 7 57 2 78% S793,468 $818,827 so S11 , 14J 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING 506 71 489 29 (17 42 .J 44% $1 ,697,554 Sl .563,435 $30.7591 so 2502 FULTON SALEM 767 56 754 661 (12 92 -1 68% $2,333.839 S2.348, 127 $55,2481 so 2503 FULTON VIOLA 457.36 466 45 909 199% Sl ,383,916 Sl ,416.903 S46.3271 so 2601 GARLANO CUTTER-MORNING ST 53668 563 14 26 46 4 93% S1 ,533.986 Sl,702.629 S32.7861 so ?602 GARLANO FOUNTAIN LAKE 1.108 61 1,120 11 1 11 50 1 04% S603, 141 Sl .247.271 1 soi S50,682 2fi03 GARLAND HOT SPRINGS 3.437 66 3.327 15 (110 51 -3 21% S6.688.675 S6,938,622 sol S32.216 2f\u003e04 GARLAND 1 .IESSIEVILLE 638 69 690 39 51 70 809% S379,899 S546,451 so so 2fi05 GARLAND I AKE HAMIL TON 3.353 24 3.471 02 117 78 3 51% S9.168,774 St0.559,526 S169.892 SS0.965 2f,()6 GARLAND 11 AKESIDE 2.330 98 2.433 74 102 76 4 41% SS.0116.106 S6.510.4CM so S70.792 2607 GARLA~b I MOI /Nl AIN PINE 651 76 696 19 44 43 6 82% S 1,790.5731 S2.077,428 S73.2?5 Sl9,074 2703 GRANT ' l 'OYFN 404 03 443 101 39 07 967% Sl ,439.850  S1,599,382 so S15,036 7705 GRANT , s ,trmDAN 3,72006 3,811 27 91 21 2 45% S 10,262.59 11; S11 .807.650 S4 22.7461 S77 ,375 2801 GREENE I \u003eELAPLAINE 304 98 296 951 (8 OJ -2 63% S924.048 Sl.022,272 S23.952 1' S29,357 21103 GREENE \\MAnMADUKE 695 90 701 9111 6 08 0 87% S2.11l 1.4117 I S2.381 ,055 s 110.2r,4 $36,728 21107 GREENE !' ;RF.ENE CTY TECHNIC 2,412 98 2.429 11 16 13 067% $7.076,230 S7,795.716 S299,907 $59.046 21106 GREENE NE ARKANSAS 2.720 46 2.781 61 1 61 15 2 25% $7 ,477,732 S7 ,813,828 S 103,726 so 2901 HEMPSTEAD RLEVINS 530 54 556 75 26 21 4 94% S 1.5118.980 Sl.728,237 so so 2903 ,HEMPSTEAD HOPE 3.143 55 3.109 78 (33 77 -1 07% S8.728.936 S9, 176.445 S309.298 so 2905 HEMPSTEAD SARATOGA 28660 266 54 1 (20 06 .7 00% Sllll5.494 S728.559 so so - - - COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE : 96TO97 WK4 ..) a.. FISCAL FISCAL ISOLATED DEBT TOTAL ALL AMOUNT PERCENT CRISIS CRISIS AID SUPP. 1996-97 AID CIIANGE CHANGE LEA 1 COUNTY DISTRICT LOC. RES. TRANS. 2002 ! OAI LAS ,FORDYCE $45.697 $8fl.909 $4 .JAfl.G!ll $504.7AA 1:100% $7 .9951 ' 2003 j OALI AS 'SPARKMAN $14 .334 $46.696 $897.30'1 ($10.227 -113% 2101 OESHA ARKANSAS CITY $58.890 $0 $200.842 $44 .239 28 25% i 2102 Dr-SHA DELTA SPECIAL $35.143 $34.341 $2.358 S739.940 ($72.52fl -8 93%1 2104 DESHA DUMAS $124.930 $6.850.018 $245.7951 3 72% 2105 OF.SHA MCGEHEE $130.606 $4.771.062 $538.750 , 12 73%1 2202 DREW DREW CENTRAL $86.641 S63, 181 S3.826,856 S247.769: 692%1 2203 OREW MONTICELLO S11 .008 S142.668 S6.994,867 S821 .060 13 30% 2]01 FAIILKNER CONWAY S392,437 S20.683. 156 S2.619.784 14 50% , 2303 FAllLKNFR GREENBRIER $14 ,039 S263.174 $7,653.307 S1 .155.342 j 11 7fl I 2304 FAULKNER GUY-PERKINS $19,746 S4 ,657 Sl ,035.143 S151 .1151 17 09 ! 2305 FAULKNER MAYFLOWER S62.713 S3,037,553 $430.368 1651% 2]06 FAULKNER MT VERNON/ENOLA $34,329 so S1 ,219.128 $165,279 1568% 2307 FAULKNER VILONIA $13,862 S330.229 $8,048.639 $1 ,086,120 1560% 2401 FRANKLIN ALTUS-DENNING S1,817 S8,328 $692,247 $4,766 069% 2402 FRANKLIN CHARLESTON S31, 136 $2,587,186 $282,944 12 28% 2403 FRANKLIN COUNTY LINE $36.925 $21,811 $1 ,800,308 $241.466 1549 2404 FRANKLIN OZARK S12.843 S89,227 $4,616,737 $703,322 17 97% 2405 FRANKLIN PLEASANT VIEW S13.499 S19,280 $2.930 $865,679 $72,191 910 2501 FULTON MAMMOTH SPRING $17 ,500 $30.925 $18.090 $1 .660,709 ($36.845 -2 17% 2502 FULTON SALEM $57.941 $76.728 $2,538.044 $204,205 8 75% 2503 FULTON VIOLA S66.193 S14 .007 $1,543.430 $159,514 11 .53% 2601 GARLAND CUTTER MORNING ST $3,426 $35.886 $1 ,774,727 $240,741 1569% 2602 GARLAND FOlJNTAIN LAKE S2.885 so $1,300,838 $497,697 61 97% 2fi0] GARLAND HOT SPRINGS I $15.915 $6,986,753 $298,078 4 46% 7604 GARLAND I.IESSIEVILLE S43.519 so $589,970 $210,071 55 30% 2605 GARLAND LAKE HAMIL TON S32.791 S218.597 S11 ,031 ,771 $1,862,997 20 32% 2606 GARLAND LAKFSIDE S68.542 $6.649,7:18 S1 ,563,632 30 74 2607 GARLAr-:ID MOlJNT AIN PINE S36,304 S41 ,398 S2.247.429 S456,856 25 51% 2703 GRANT POYEN $73,962 S15,930 so S1.704 .310 $264,460 18 37% 2705 GRANT SHFRIOAN S109.399 S247,550I S12,664 ,720 $2,402,129 23 41 2801 GREENE IDELAPtAINE S 14.953 SfiR.756 so S1,159,290 $235,242 25 46%1 2803 GREENE 1MARMADUKE S24,987 S51 ,2221 S2,604 ,256 $422,769 1938%1 2807 GREENE ;\u003c;REENE CTY TECHNIC $53,012 S175,666 S8,:J83.347 $1 ,307,117 11147%1 2fl0R GREFNE IN E ARKANSAS S97.750 S8,015.304 S537,572 7 19%1 2901IHEMPSTEAO ,1LEVINS $39.444 S15,468 S1,78J.149 S194.169 12 22% 2903 HEMPSTEAD IHOPE $]1 ,0131 S201 ,4fl0 S9,6R7 .2231 S958,287 10 9fl I 7905 HEMPSTEAD \\SARATOGA S58.203 i S6,97R Sll24 ,7~,3 . (S60,741 -6fl6% ! - - I. COMPARISON OF TOTAL STATE AID 1995-96 TO 1996-97 FILE 96TO97 WK4 ci.. ADM FOR ADM FOR NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL TOT. SELECT. ADO. BASE GROWTH 1995-1996 1996-1997 CHANGE CHANGE 1995-1996 1996-97 AID FUNDING FACILITY LEA COUNTY DISTRICT JQ hlQ STATE AID 12-27-96 FUNDING I I 2906 HrMf'SlEAO Sf'RING HILL 412 94 451 31 38 37 9 29%1 S1.J1Ul33 Sl .534.083 S 14.6201 S4 48111 3001 HOI SPRING OISMARCK 903.40 943 59 40 19 4 45% S2.703.39'l $3.045.087, S 161l.073 S19,0801 3002 HOT SPRING GLEN ROSE 961 .08 983 79 22 71 2 36% S3.043.974 S3,422.231 Sl 1,706 S43,799 3003 IIOT SPRING MAGNET COVE 677 77 723 38 45 61 6.73% S1 .644.850 S2,035.675 so S20.283 I 3004 HOT Sf'RING MALVERN 2,722 49 2,653 75 (68.74 -2 52% S7.605,392 S7 ,796.149 S255.556 3005 HOT SPRING OUACHITA 40997 381 .77 (28.20 -6 88% Sl ,267,543 S1.217.545 S17.777 $4,65so7l 3102 HOWARD ll)IERKS 60801 627.89 19.88 3.27% Sl.473.910 Sl ,719.922 S18,321 so 3104 HOWARD MINERAL SPGS 535.46 531 65 (3 81 -0.71% S 1.673.781 Sl,737,894 so sol 3105 HOWARO NASHVILLE 1,837.78 1,841 .52 3.74 0 20% S4 ,897,393 S5.335.245 S148,958 so 3106 HOWARO UMf'IRE 112 94 108 55 (4 39 -3 89% S277,089 S211 .505 so so 3201 INDEPENDEN BATESVILLE 2.282 37 2.249 88 (32 49 -1 42% S5.676.270 S6.172.829 S167,481 so 3202 INOEPENOEN CORD-CHARLOTTE 28941 292 88 3 47 1 20% S920.774 S929.268 S20.874 so 3203 INDEPENDEN CUSHMAN 36540 388 50 23 10 6 32% S1.448,487 Sl ,355.848 S3.080 S6,649 3206 INOEPENDEN NEWARK 751 43 747 74 (3 69 -049% S575.930 so S27.187 so 3209 INDEPENOEN SOUTH SIDE 1,379 42 1,363 53 (1589 -115% S5,068, 173 S4,598.882 S92, 188 so 3210 INDEPENDEN SULPHUR ROCK 282 90 295 10 12 20 4 31% S479,934 S573.817 so S7 ,882 3211 INDEPENDEN MIDLAND 673 72 683 72 1000 148% S2.448.494 S2,286.734 S64 .637 so 3301 IZARD C:AUCOROCK 503 85 513 35 9 50 1 89% S1 ,607,127 S1 ,662.308 so S18.6591 3302 IZARD MELBOURNE 545 12 538 45 (667 -1 22% Sl,525,610 Sl ,534.140 S24 ,156 so, 3303 IZARO MOUNT PLEASANT 280 41 301 65 21 24 7 57% S897,039 S923,852 S10,376 so' 3306 IZARO IZARO COl INTY 622 41 66206 3965 6 37% S1.68J,788 Sl,841 ,655 S48.567 so 3403 JACKSON NEWPORT 2,12039 2,087 41 (32 98 -1.56% S5,850,617 S5,574.888 S7 .138 sol 3404 JACKSON SWIFTON 260 45 264 05 360 1 38% S681,928 S820.616, so S11.185j 3405 /.IACKSON .IACKSON COUNTY 663 60 66064 (2 96 -0 45% Sl.714,539 S1,736,JOO S60.970 so, 3501 JEFFERSON AL THEIMER UNIFIED 724 92 715 31 (9 61 -1 33% S2,0J0,959 Sl,946.189 so  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1672","title":"Court filings concerning release of four-year-old seats, summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula, Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator, and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Southwest Junior High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School administrators","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning release of four-year-old seats, summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula, Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator, and LRSD's revised desegregation and education plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1672"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["26 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to release four-year-old seats; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) separate motion for summary judgment on the issue of the state funding formula; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to motion to have Southwest Junior High School placed in receivership and for the appointment of a special administrator; District Court, two orders; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for approval of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised desegregation and education plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DESEGREGATION MONITORma INTERvENoRs INTERVENORS MOTION TO RELEASE FOUR-YEAR OLD SEATS For its motion to release four-year old seats, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD has encouraged parents to register their children for four-year old seats during the regular registration process. Many black parents have registered their children but those children cannot be assigned because of the number of seats which have been reserved for white students. 2. The LRSD engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts during the 1996-97 school year as it prepared for registration for the 1997-98 school year. Attached to this motion as Exhibit 1 is a partial list of those recruitment efforts. Additionally, the information contained in LRSD's quarterly program planning and budget documents, status reports and project management tools serve to supplement this listing. 3. Although most of the schools with four-year old programs have racially balanced programs with no vacancies, seats are available in some four-year old programs and no white students are - on the waiting lists for those programs. The vacancies are shown on Exhibit 2 attached to this motion, which is titled \"1997-98 FourYear Old Applications.\" LRSD seeks permission to fill the vacancies shown on Exhibit 2 with students from the waiting lists. 4. LRSD endeavored to register as many new white students as possible in its four-year old programs. Most of those programs are racially balanced. The seats that still remain vacant should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities which will be provided. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves for an order permitting it to release the vacant four-year old program seats for the 1997-98 school year to students on the waiting list. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ~:~ Christo:~------ Bar No. 81083 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion To Release FourYear Old Seats has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 2nd day of September, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 - August 25, 1997 To: Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment From: Becky Rather, Essie Middleton, Parent Recruiters Re: Recruitment Efforts For Four-Year-Old Seats January edition of Little Rock Family Magazine published Public School Issue as a results of our involvement. January 2 Worked with Dawn Jackson in planning neighborhood parent meeting, resulting in a number of west Little Rock parents applying for four-year-old programs and kindergarten. 6 Provided packets to Rector Phillips Morse Realtors 6 Mailed 15,000 Home and School Connection newsletters informing parents of registration. 6 Mailed registration packets to: 7 10 13-14 14 14 16 16-17 16 17 18 21 21 24 27 27 28 30 31 135 Childcare Centers 44 Homeowners Associations 210 Special Interest Patrons of Little Rock 88 Ministers Gave presentation to HIPPY staff Taped promo for Channel 11, \"Always Kids, Educated Choice\" Show and Tell in all schools sponsored and advertised through Alliance for Our Public Schools Presented at Early Childhood meeting Presented at evening HIPPY parent group meeting Sent flyers home with elementary children on registration Posted flyers throughout the city on registration. Attended evening parent meeting in private home of Dawn Jackson. Mailed 400 brochures to PCSSD on Incentive Schools Participated in Saturday Mall show Registration begins through Jan. 31 . Provided information to Christ Temple Church Assist Steve Pintor Realtors Assist Rainey Realty Open House, Incentive and Interdistrict Open House, Elementary Area . Participate in Arkansas Legislative Day on Education with PT A Assist Mc eil Smith Realtors February 3 Evening presentation to network of Executive Women 4 Presentation to Charlotte John Realty EXHIBIT 1 4 6 7 8 11 12 19 20 21 24 24 March 3 4 4 5 10 13 18 19 26 27 April Report to Biracial Committee Parent Involvement meeting Work with CARE office Attend Saturday, Title 1 Parent Involvement program Report to Early Childhood board on 4-year-old registration HIPPY board meeting Attend Kids Count Coalition at Children 's Hospital Meet with PCS SD PT A parents Work with McKay Realty Meet with Janet Jones Realty Meet with NLR PT A parents Assist Byer Agent Realtors Mail assignment letters Report to Biracial Committee Assist Howell Realtors Assembly for Success Assisted Grobmyer Realty Presentation to Janet Jones Realty Spent afternoon with Lisa Woodrow, new relocation specialist for RPM Realty Worked with Barbara Sumpter, new relocation specialist for Entergy Early Childhood Parent Involvement meeting. 1 Kids Count meeting 8 Early Childhood Advocacy Committee 8 PTA Council, Dunbar 8 Meeting at Clinton Elementary 9 Work with Fair Park parents on recruitment 14 Kids Count meeting 15 Four-year-old assignments mailed 15 Worked with Fair Park parents on recruitment May Worked with !!!illlY parents who did not get into 4-year-old program offering assistance and information to best serve those students. 15 PT A Council Gibbs 15 Mailed letters to all parents of white 4-year-old students who did not get into a school of their choice, offering seats in schools with vacancies June 4 Report to Biracial Committee 5 Arranged for and provided program for mid-west Little Rock parents meeting at Books A Million in the evening - 16 July 2 3 7 8 15 16 23 Gained approval to purchase ad in Kids Directory and provided copy emphasizing Incentive schools and four-year-old program Full page ad purchased to run full month in Kids Directory Prepared Four-Year-Old flyer Met with Hispanic organization informing them of programs offered Mailed letters to white PCS SD parents who did not get into program at King or Rockefeller offering other schools with vacancies Notified Communications to prepare \"Check In\" flyers and posters Arranged tour of Rightsell for PCS SD white parents, enrolling 4. Wrote article about school programs for Central Hispanic Newsletter Mailed information letters and flyers to: 68 Childcare centers 33 Community leaders 86 Churches 29 Kids Count Coalition meeting, announced white seats available in program 30 Displayed \"Check In\" posters throughout the city in grocery stores, etc. August 1 Worked with Parents for Public Schools in providing information for Parent Connection hotline We continue to accept applications for P4 program and process and assign all that we can in schools that have vacancies. All white students are advised as to openings that may be available at this time and toured if not convinced. Forms were sent to all schools with P4 so they could FAX in any drops they might find as people checkin. Vacancies are then filled from the waiting lists according to the race of the child who is not coming this year. Sheet1 1997-98 4-YEAR OLD APPLICATIONS NAME OF SCHOOL ENROLLED WAITING LIST BL NBL TOTAL CAPACITY VACANCIE~ %BLACK BL NBL Badgett 18 2 20 36 16 90% 8 0 Bale 18 18 36 36 0 50% 58 4 Baseline 18 9 27 36 9 67% 86 0 Brady 9 9 18 18 0 50% 91 36 Chicot 18 18 36 36 0 50% 72 3 Cloverdale 18 7 25 36 11 72% 88 0 Fair Park 18 18 36 36 0 50% 50 20 Franklin 36 21 57 72 15 50% 82 0 Garland 9 2 11 18 7 82% 42 0 Geyer Springs 18 18 36 36 0 50% 82 5 Martin L. King 36 36 72 72 0 50% 260 52 Mabelvale 9 9 18 18 0 50% 52 4 Mitchell 9 3 12 18 6 75% 71 0 Rightsell 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 0 Rockefeller 27 27 54 54 0 50% 140 20 Romine 18 18 36 36 0 50% 92 7 Washington 27 27 54 54 0 50% 104 7 Watson 18 4 22 36 14 82% 52 0 Wilson 9 9 18 18 0 50% 70 4 Woodruff 18 18 36 36 0 50% 27 10 *Clinton 25 0 25 25 0 100% 15 0 *Crystal Hill 32 0 32 32 0 100% 36 0 TOTAL 417 282 699 777 78 1648 172 *denote Pulaski Countv Page 1 EXHIBIT 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 1997 EASTERN DIST~~CT OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for August, 1997. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General TIMO Assistant ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of August 29, 1997 Based on the information available at July 31, 1997, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 97/98, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-86JtECE.1\\fED PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL SEP 3 1997 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD'S SEPARATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE STATE FUNDING FORMULA Introduction The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") recently filed - its opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the consolidated appeals concerning teacher retirement and health insurance. In the concluding paragraphs of that brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the ADE contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 ADE App. Br. at p. 24, attached to motion as Exhibit 2. [Emphasis supplied.] 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". Agreement at~ L, page 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 1. 1 Contrary to the ADE's assertion that the PCSSD was a ''winner\", and as it will demonstrate below, the PCSSD lost over $5,000,000 this past year because of the new funding system. The ADE also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic) equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors are equally blunt in their argument to the Court of Appeals: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. App. Br. at p. 10, attached to motion as Exhibit 3. The PCSSD accepts the challenge of the ADE and the 111 school districts to scrutinize the effect of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate that the new funding system as a whole is unfair to the PCSSD and violates the Settlement Agreement and previous orders of this Court. 2 Effects of the New System The PCSSD has now obtained updated information from the Arkansas Department of Education which demonstrates precisely how all major categories of State aid were distributed for the 1996- 97 school year. This document, attached to the Stewart Affidavit as Exhibit \"A\", compares all major categories of total State aid from the 1995-96 fiscal year to the 1996-97 fiscal year. 2 Stewart Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4. This comparison demonstrates that the PCSSD experienced a net growth in State aid of 1.12% this past year as compared to the previous year. Overall, however, the average increase in State aid per school district for this past year was 12.09% before adjustment is made for the PCSSD. When the PCSSD is removed from the calculation, the average overall state increase becomes 12.64%. The Case Law and the Settlement Agreement Prohibit this Disparity As this Court observed in its order of April 22, 1997 regarding health insurance: The appellate court held that the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, \"so long as the change is, in the words of the settlement agreement, 'fair and rational' and of 'general applicability.'\" . . . . \"So long as the change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement.\" Order, pp. 3-4. (Citations omitted) [Emphasis supplied.] 2This Exhibit A is essentially an updated version of the - analysis accepted by the District Court on February 18, 1997. 3 In commenting further upon the disparity that actually resulted from the funding system, this Court quoted the Court of Appeals' conclusion that: This results in precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than the other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached this result in a mathematically consistent manner.\" Order, p. 4. (Citation omitted). The Disparity Is Immense Of the 111 Intervening School Districts, over one-half have 1996-97 State aid outcomes which are right at or which greatly exceed the state average of a 12.09% increase. 3 As drawn from Exhibit A to Dr. Stewart's Affidavit, attached to motion as Exhibit 4, they are as follows: District Fountain Lake Alread Carthage Bentonville Gillett Biggers-Reyno Greenland Yellville-Summit Leslie Junction City Nettleton White Hall Valley Springs Greenwood Increase Over 1995-96 61.97 51. 42 41.08 37.35 36.98 35.75 29.45 27.94 27.12 24.45 24.34 24. 04 23.69 23.34 3Anticipating that the Intervenors may once again make their Parade Magazine argument concerning \"averages\", it should be observed that the Blevins School District, one of the Intervenors, had a statistical increase which is right at the state average and that the Magazine District experienced a State aid increase almost precisely that of the state average when the PCSSD is removed from the calculation. See, infra, p. 5. 4 - - Beebe 22.81 Greene County Technical 18.47 Lavaca 18.30 Ashdown 18.25 Wonderview 18.09 Ozark 17.97 Weiner 17.38 Glen Rose 17.11 Guy-Perkins 17.09 Stuttgart 17.06 Manila 17.03 Alma 16.80 Van Buren 16.73 Mayflower 16.51 Jonesboro 16.18 Pocahontas 16.10 Centerpoint 16.08 Crossett 15.79 Cutter-Morning Star 15.69 County Line 15.49 Winslow 15.30 Oden 14.48 Marion 14.33 Batesville 14.01 Rural Special 13 .44 Wickes 13. 33 Marshall 13. 05 Waldron 13. 02 McGehee 12.73 Magazine 12.67 Smackover 12.34 West Fork 12.32 Charleston 12.28 Blevins 12.22 Booneville 11. 90 So. Conway Co. 11. 31 Green Forest 11. 22 Bryant 10.98 Prairie Grove 10.69 Searcy 10. 52 4 Pulaski County Special 1. 26 4This group of intervening districts is 90.71 white at the elementary level and 91.07 white at the secondary level. See Exhibit 5 attached to motion. 5 Fiscal Crisis Relief Funding The Court will further see from an examination of Exhibit \"A\" that many districts, including many of the intervening districts, received fiscal crisis relief funding as well as fiscal crisis relief funding for transportation. On January 22, 1997, the PCSSD sought an enlargement of time from the State to submit its application for fiscal crisis relief funding. See Exhibit \"8\". The State has distributed all $10,000,000 appropriated for fiscal crisis relief funding for this school year. The PCSSD received no response to its application for an enlargement of time. In the Court's order of February 18, 1997 dealing with separate funding issues, this Court stated the following: The Court finds persuasive the figures submitted by the PCSSD which show that its total State funding in 1996- 97 will be less under the new formula than it would have been under the old. See PCSSD MFPA Calculation Estimate with Act 34 of 1996-97, Ex. A, PCSSD Prehearing Brief (doc. #2854). In response to the State's figures that indicate that the PCSSD does better under the new formula, see Green Deel., State's Resp. to M. Summ. J., the PCSSD points out that the State's figures are not adjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely on data from the previous school year. The figures that this Court found persuasive were that the PCSSD would receive $3,462,880 less in 1996-97 under Act 917 than it would have received had Act 34 remained the law. The difference became $4,479,527 if the State added more money to the Act 34 formula. See PCSSD brief dated November 18, 1996 at pp. - 3-4 and Exhibit \"A\" to that brief. 6 When the PCSSD prepared these estimates last November, it assumed initially that only $56,000,000 would be added to the equalization formula. That resulted in the decrease of $3,462,880. The decrease of $4,479,527 resulted from the PCSSD assumption, made then, that $80,000,000 might be added to the formula. In fact, with final figures now available, $142,672,000 was in fact added to the formula or available for distribution to school districts. Had Act 34 been in existence, the State would have used approximately $9,911,000 of that increased amount to fund increases in teacher retirement and health insurance, leaving $132,760,638 available for distribution through the Act 34 formula. See Stewart Affidavit5 , attached to motion as Exhibit 4. Utilizing the actual new money that was added to the formula after controlling for teacher retirement and health insurance increases, and utilizing the same methodology that the PCSSD used in Exhibit \"A\" from last November, the PCSSD calculates its actual loss for 1996-97 to be $5,631,491. That is, if Act 34 had remained in operation for this past school year, and utilizing the actual addition to the formula of $132,760,636, the PCSSD lost over $5,600,000 under Act 917 as compared to Act 34. 5This is essentially the same affidavit and calculations, now updated, which the District Court found persuasive on February 18, 1997. To the extent necessary, the PCSSD incorporates by reference its previous statements of material and undisputed facts, prior affidavits, and the prior findings of this Court. 7 At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. The State has represented to the Court of Appeals that: [t]he three Districts emerged from the change in the funding system unscathed. In fact, from a state aid perspective the three Districts benefited from the passage of Act 917 when compared to 1995-96, the last year of operation of the old Act 34 system ... For 1996-97 PCSSD received approximately $700,000 more in state aid than it did for the 1995-96 school year. ADE App. Br. at pp. 8-9, attached to motion as Exhibit 6. The fashion in which the State compared aid outcomes for 1995-96 against 1996-97 is meaningless. What must be compared, as the PCSSD has done supra, are aid outcomes comparing 1996-97 State aid under Act 917 versus Act 34 utilizing 1996-97 funding levels for each Act. Thus, the State's boast that PCSSD benefited to the extent of $700,000 becomes picayunish when the proper analysis is made. The District Court has already rejected the $700,000 claim by the State, see Order dated February 18, 1997 at p. 12, attached to motion as Exhibit 7 and, since the calculation by the State was made in December, 1996, it included the $81,000 in growth funding that the State later took away from the PCSSD as we point out infra at page 9. Further, in the same order, in the context of considering the teacher retirement issue, this Court held: Even if the Court were to find that the new funding scheme for teacher retirement is an \"adjustment\" to the funding formula which has \"general applicability\", 8 however, the Court cannot find that it is a \"fair and rational adjustment.\" Throughout these proceedings, the State and Intervenors have consistently argued that the changes in State aid should be viewed as a whole, not piecemeal. They have also argued that when the entire system is considered, the Pulaski County school districts fare better under the new system than under the old. With the fiscal year now ended, the PCSSD can conclusively demonstrate that the State's argument, as to the PCSSD, is simply wrong. As observed above, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 under the new system as compared to the old. It trails in the wake of more than one-half of the intervening school districts, was not considered for the fiscal crisis relief funding or extra transportation aid that was lavished upon the wealthy Newark School District (indeed its application for an extension of the deadline was not even acknowledged), and is basically being penalized because it votes one of the highest millages in the state, thus reducing its State aid entitlement under the new scheme. In contrast, Newark, which is either the wealthiest or second wealthiest district in the State, received additional base funding, fiscal crisis relief funding and extra transportation funding. (See Exhibit A to Exhibit 4 to motion at pp. 7 and 8. It qualified for this State aid because it only levies local taxes of approximately one-half those voted in the PCSSD. How can it plausibly be argued by the State that the adjustments it - has made to the formula are \"fair and rational\", at least to the 9 - extent they affect the PCSSD, a relatively poor district, so negatively? The State Revoked the PCSSD Growth Funding Earlier this year, the PCSSD unsuccessfully sought to persuade this Court, via motion for summary judgment, . to restore loss funding. In its response dated February 10, 1997, the State jabbed the PCSSD's claim for the restoration of loss funding stating: in a crowning bid of irony, all three of the Pulaski County Districts are eligible for and will receive growth funding for 1996-97. The Districts' argument that the Settlement Agreement requires the \"reinstatement\" of loss funding under these circumstances is plainly frivolous. The State did pay growth funding to the PCSSD for a period of time, but then revoked it. Despite the rhetorical theatrics of the State noted above, the State did on June 13, 1997 request return of the $81,000 it had paid the PCSSD as \"growth funding\". See Exhibit C attached to motion as Exhibit 4. The PCSSD immediately complied and returned the money. Once again, while not sought directly by this motion, the PCSSD ended the year where it has been for the last several years, a candidate for loss funding with no loss funding available. As a relatively poor school district, should not the PCSSD reasonably expect to be treated at least as well as the average school district in Arkansas, especially when the \"average\" school district has none of the extra commitments and expenditures that the PCSSD has, as repeatedly pointed out by this Court? 10 Conclusion The Intervening Districts have, of course, intervened to protect their gains at the Court of Appeals level and seek intervention again to protect their gains in light of the latest order of this Court. The PCSSD is a relatively poor district when compared to all other school districts in the state of Arkansas. It asks only to be brought up to the state-wide average, i.e., that it be funded to the same degree, as the average school district in Arkansas fared under the new formula. This adjustment will not totally ameliorate for the PCSSD's high special education costs, its loss of loss funding, cuts in residential treatment aid, etc., but it will lend some equity to a situation that is inequitable on its - face, a situation which violates the Settlement Agreement as interpreted by this Court and the Court of Appeals. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court requiring that the Arkansas Department of Education correct its 1996-97 overall State-aid to obtain the result of the same average increase as experienced by the average school district in Arkansas, or, in the alternative, for the sums it would have received in 1996-97 under Act 34. 11 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On September 2-, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J ,J hslOS0.030 12 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANsPI LED Or-FlCE OF A WESTERN DIVISION u.s. DISTRICT ccuRTnE~tGREGATION MONITORING W E.A.STE;;N CISTRICT ARK.A:'L ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SEP 51997 PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ------;;;:;::;-;O:E;P;\". CELEoRiKi PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO HAVE SOUTHWEST JR. HIGH SCHOOL PLACED IN RECEIVERSHIP AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR LRSD for its Response states: 1. Joshua's Motion arises out of the alleged \"misfeasance and malfeasance of the [Southwest Junior High School) principal, Dr. Walter Marchalek (sic).\" Joshua's Motion, 1 1. Dr. Marshaleck' s competency to perform his duti es is an individual personnel matter. Consistent with this Court's past practice, LRSD respectfully requests that it be permitted to address this matter in accordance with its own internal processes. See Order filed Jan. 23, 1997, Docket No. 2915, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be dismissed without a hearing. 2. LRSD admits that late summer changes in Southwest's master schedule resulted in approximately 80 registered students not having a schedule on the first day of classes. To accommodate these students, Dr. Marshaleck planned to provide hand-written schedules to these students upon arrival. This effort was slowed by the illness of Southwest's registrar who missed the first three days of school. Southwest's attendance secretary was also absent the first day of school due to illness. The effort was further complicated by the arrival of approximately 60 students not previously registered to attend Southwest. These students also needed schedules. Students without schedules were supervised in the cafeteria without incident. Every effort was made, including 16-hour workdays, to provide all students with schedules as quickly as possible. All Southwest students had schedules and were attending class by August 27, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 3. LRSD denies that \"numerous\" students were \"misassigned\" by Dr. Marshaleck. LRSD admits that one special education student was erroneously assigned to a gifted and talented class as a result - of a data entry error. First priority was given to students with no schedules. As soon as all students had schedules, work began on correcting scheduling errors. The special education student's schedule was corrected on August 28, 1997. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 4. LRSD admits the allegation set forth in paragraph 3 of Joshua's Motion. Individualized education plans are only prepared for special education students. 5. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Joshua's Motion. 2 6. LRSD admits that one student was slightly injured during an altercation with another student which occurred while a teacher left a class unattended. This was against LRSD policy and appropriate action has been taken in response to this incident. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 7. LRSD admits that students without schedules were not receiving instruction. LRSD denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 6 of Joshua's Motion. The teaching staff at Southwest has been asked to make every effort to ensure that students who were assigned to class late do not fall behind. 8. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Joshua's Motion. 9. LRSD admits that it was aware of the scheduling problem at Southwest. LRSD believes it responded appropriately by making additional personnel available to assist Southwest, and the problem has now been resolved. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Joshua's Motion except as specifically admitted above. 10. LRSD denies the allegations  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_113","title":"Memos received","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"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["1997-09","1997-10","1997-11","1997-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Pulaski County (Ark.)--History--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Memos received"],"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/113"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["memorandums"],"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     ADE Memos - Received 9-17-97 To Provide Financial Incentives for National Baord Certification of Teachers Public Hearing Transfers of Students/Relations with other Schools Petition for Transfer of Students Special Education Programs Special Education Program Approval and Required Data Collection Relations with Election Authorities Results of the Annual School Election, September 16, 1997 Research/ Administrator Reports Title I, ESEA Quarterly Report of Cash Distribution Tuition/ Administration of Nonresident Students Tuition Agreement Form Special Education Programs Public Hearing: Proposed Rules and Regulations to Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation  Arkansas Young Writer's Award Winners Celebration of Young Readers and Writers Banquet  Curriculum Development, Adoption and Review Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682--i-P.\u0026gt; RAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: ACC-98-023 Page: 1 of 4 Date: September 11, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Secondary Principals Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability: Frank Anthony Subject: To Provide Financial Incentives for National Board Certification of Teachers Regulatory Authority: Act 1225 of 1997 Contact Person: Skip Hibblen, Coordinator Professional Licensure Index Code: GCFC Phone No: (501) 682-4342 The 1997 Arkansas Act 1225 outlined procedures for the Arkansas Department of Education to provide financial incentives for National Board's certification of teachers. The attached rules and regulations have been approved by the State Board of Education at it's September 8, 1997 meeting and have been properly filed. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chalnnan-WILLIAM B. FISHER, ParacoaW  VluChainnan- LUKE GORDY, Van Bun,n Memben: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., FJ Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocen  JoNELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXOr., Arkadelphia JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tn  rbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttle Rock  ANITA YATES, BaatonvWe An Equal Opportunity Employer I ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RULES AND REGULATIONS To Provide for Financial Incentives for National Board Certification of Teachers 1.00 Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations to Provide for Financial Incentives for National Board Certification of Teachers. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Act 1225 of 1997. 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth regulations to provide for financial incentives for National Board Certification of Teachers. - 3.00 Definitions 3.01 NBPTS: National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. 4.00 Eligibility Requirements 4.01 Application shall be made to the Office of Teacher Education and Licensure for petition of state funding. Components of the application shall include: a) proof of possession of a valid Arkansas teaching license, b) proof of three (3) or more years of teaching experience in an Arkansas public school, and c) proof of formal application to the NBPTS. 4.02 Shall NOT have previously received state funding for participation in any area in the NBPTS program. 4.03 Applications will be funded on a \"first-come, first serve\" basis. 5.00 Payment of fees 5.01 Shall apply only to the extent that funds are appropriated to the Department of Education. 5.02 The Department of Education shall pay one-half() of the NBPTS participation fee. 5.03 Other assistance, if determined to be necessary by the Department of Education, may include substitute pay for a maximum of three (3) days of approved paid leave for teacher participating in the NBPTS program. Repayment of Moneys 6.01 Repayment of state moneys for the NBPTS participation fee is required if recipient: (a) does not complete the certification process, or (b) after completing the certification does not teach in the Arkansas public school system for two (2) continuous school years. 6.02 Repayment of moneys is not required due to: (a) death or disability of teacher, or - (b) other extenuating circumstances as may be recognized by the State Board of Education. ACT 1225 OF 1997 \"AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR NATIONAL BOARD CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS.\" BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards ( .. NBPTS\") was established in 1987 as an independent nonprofit organization to establish high and rigorous standards for teachers\nto develop and operate a national voluntary system to assess and certify teachers who meet these standards\nand advance related education reforms for the purpose_of improving student learning in the United States. In order to apply for the NBPTS certification process, the NBPTS requires teachers to have three (3) years or more of teaching experience, to have graduated from an accredited college or university. and to possess a valid state teaching license. A teacher may become NBPTS certified by successfully completing a year-long  certification process in which the teacher must develop a portfolio of student work and videotapes of teaching and learning activities for NBPTS review. participate in the NBPTS assessment center simulation exercises, and successfully pass an examination testing content knowledge. SECTION 2. (a) The State Department of Education shall pay one-half (1/2) of the NBPTS participation fee and provide, if determined to be necessary by the State Department of Education, substitute pay for a maximum of three (3) days of approved paid leave for teachers participating in .the NBPTS program. A teacher shall have completed at least three (3) years teaching in the Arkansas public school system before applying for NBPTS assistance under this act, and shall not have previously received state funding for participation in any certification area in the NBPTS program. (b) A teacher who receives state moneys for the NBPTS participation fee, but who does not complete the certification process or who becomes certified buf does not teach in the Arkansas public school system for two (2) continuous schoo~years after receiving the NBPTS certification, shall repay the state the amount it contributed to the NBPTS participation fee. (1) Repayment of moneys contributed by the state are not required if the teacher does not complete the NBPTS certification process or does not teach in the Arkansas public school system for two (2) continuous school years after completing the certification process due to the death or disability of the teacher or other-extenuating circumstances as may be recognized by the State Board of Education. (c) Provisions of this act shall apply only to-the extent that funds are app~ated to the Department of Education to pay for these provisions. SECTION 3. Codification aause SECTION 4. Severability aause SECTION S. Repealing aause Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK AR KAN ~A~ 722ul - l 07 l  ( ~Ul J h~~ --l~ 75 RAYMOND SIMON. Director NO: FIN-98-115 Page: 1 0f 1 Date: September 11. 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Other Educational Agencies Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Public Hearing Index Code: BEE Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Funding to Isolated School Districts Proposed Rules and Regulations Related_to General Facilities Funding Proposed Rules and Regulations Related to Growth Facilities Funding Proposed Rules and Regulations Related to Student Growth Funding Proposed Revisions to the Rules and Regulations Governing Special Education Expenditure Requirements Regulatory Authority: Act 1307 of 1997 Section 2 (17) (28), Act 1318 of 1997, Acts 197 and 1194 of 1995, Ark_ Code Ann.  6-20-303 as amended by Act 1307 of 1997 Contact Person: John Kunkel Diane Sydoriak Phone No: 682-4258 Phone No: 682-4221 NOTICE: The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Finance and Administration, will hold a public hearing on Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Criteria Used to Identify and Distribute Funding to Isolated School Districts\nGrowth Facilities Funding\nStudent Grow1h Funding\nand Proposed Revisions to the Rules and Regulations Governing Special Education Expenditure Requirements. The public hearing will be held Tuesday, September 30, 1997, at 10:00 a.m. in the auditorium of the Arch Ford Education Building, #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, Arkansas. Copies of the proposed rules and regulations are attached. Written comments from the public will be accepted until Monday, October 13, l 997 _ Those comments should be sent to: John Kunkel. Associate Director Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 202-A Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 STATt\nBOARD OF F:DIJCATION : f'halnnan - WILLIAM ll t\"JSHER, Paraiould  Vke Chairman LI 1,.t I_. RI)\\ I  ,, u,,,en M\u0026lt;mben: EDWIN 8. ALDERSON, ,JR., El Dorado  CARLE RAl:GETT, Roin  JoNELL CALDWELL, llryant  MARThA IJl\u0026gt;,.U.\"\\, Arkot1p1u .JAMES McLARTY 111, Nowport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., M~h  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR.. Texarkana  SHERRY WALKER, Littl\u0026lt; Rock  ANITA YATES, S.ntonW An Equal Opportunity Employ\u0026lt;r 1.00 Arkansas Department of Education Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Isolated Funding Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations governing the distribution of funding to Isolated School Districts in accordance with Act 1381 of 1997 and Ark~sas Code Annotated  6-20-303 (17) as amended by Section 2 (17) of Act 1307 of 1997. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993) and 6-20-305 (1995 Supp.). 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to establish criteria by which a school district may choose the basis for calculation of the district's isolated funding and to establish a isolated funding factor. 3.00 Definitions 3.01 Isolated Funding - The state financial aid provided to local school districts with an average daily membership of less than three hundred fifty (350) from funds made available for that purpose. 3.02 Isolated Funding Factor - A factor calculated by dividing the isolated funding by the total amount qualifying school districts would be eligible to receive based on the calculation of aid as defined by law. 4.00 Selection of Method of Calculation 4.01 School districts with an ADM of less than 350 will not be required to apply for isolated funding as established by Arkansas Code Annotated  6-20-303 (17) as amended by Section 2 (17) of Act 1307 of 1997. 4.02 School districts which may elect to qualify for isolated funding as provided in Act 1318 of 1997 shall apply to the Department of Education. 5.00 Application for Aid 5.01 School districts applications to qualify for isolated funding, in accordance with Act 1318 of 1997, shall be on forms provided by the Arkansas Department of Education. 5.02 Applications to qualify for isolated funding are due by May 15, preceding the school - year for which Isolated Funding is to be provided. 5.03 The Department of Education shall review all applications for isolated status to determine compliance with all eligibility criteria. 6.00 Funding Distribution 6.01 Isolated funding shall be calculated as defined by law. 6.02 Funds shall be distributed by multiplying each qualifying school district's isolated funding by the Isolated Funding Factor. 1.00 Arkansas Department of Education Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of General Facility Funding Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations governing the distribution of General Facility Funding. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993) and 6-20-301 et seq. (Supp. 1995). 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to provide the calculation for distribution of General Facility Funding. 3.00 Definitions 3.01 Average Daily Membership (ADM) - The total number of days attended plus the total number of days absent by students in grades kindergarten through twelve (K-12) during the first three quarters of the previous school year, divided by the number of school days actually taught in the school district during that period of time I rounded up to the nearest hundredth. 3.02 Base Local Revenue Per Student - The revenue per student to which the state equalizes calculated by taking the sum of the total available State aid for State Equalization Funding per student and ninety-eight (98%) of the base millage times the total state assessed valuation, and seventy-five (75%) of miscellaneous funds collected in the previous year, divided by the total state ADM. 3.03 General Facility Funding -The amount of funds budgeted by the State Board in any specified year provided to qualifying school districts for the purchase of school buses, furniture, equipment, computer software or renovation or repairs of existing facilities. 3.04 General Facility Funding Factor - The amount of funding per Average Daily Membership (ADM) not to exceed a rate established by the State Board of Education. 3.05 Local Revenue Per Student-In each year, ninety-eight percent (98%) of the amount of revenue available, whether or not collected, in a local school district, solely from the levy of the uniform rate of tax, plus seventy-five percent (75%) of the average miscellaneous funds collected in the previous five (5) years or previous year 4.00 3.05 Local Revenue Per Student (Continued) whichever is less divided by the average daily membership of such local school district for the previous year. 3.06 Miscellaneous Funds - Those funds received by a local school district from federal forest reserves, federal grazing rights, federal mineral rights, federal impact aid, federal flood control, wildlife refuge funds, severance taxes, funds received by the district in lieu of taxes, and local sales and use tax dedicated to education pursuant to 26-74-201 et seq., 26-74-301 et seq.,  26-75-301 et seq., and 14-164-301 et seq .. 3.07 Qualifying School Districts - The school districts having a Department of Education approved facilities needs assessment justification. 3.08 State Equalization Funding Per Student - The amount of state financial aid per ADM provided to each local school district calculated by subtracting the Local Revenue Per Student from the Base Local Revenue Per Student. 3.09 State Wealth Index - The result of one ( 1) minus the ratio of local revenue per student divided by state equalization funding per student. Calculation 4.01 For districts qualifying for general facility funding, multiply the Average Daily Membership (ADM) times the product of the state wealth index and the general facility funding factor. 4.02 One calculation to determine the distribution of general facility funding shall be made each school year. No adjustments in general facility funding will be made during that specified year. 4.03 Local districts whose local revenue per student is above the state equalization funding per student shall not be eligible for general facilities funding. 5.00 Funds Carried Forward 5.01 Funds may be carried forward but shall remain restricted to purchases defined in Section 3.03. - - 1.00 Arkansas Department of Education Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Growth Facility Funding Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education regulations governing the distribution o! Growth Facility Funding. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993) and 6-20-305 (Supp. 1995) 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to provide the calculation for distribution of Growth Facility Funding. 3.00 Definitions 3.01 Growth Facility Funding - The amount budgeted by the State Board of Education to be provided to qualifying school districts in any specified year for capital outlay which means for the acquisition of land or a school site, construction of new school facilities and bond payments for the same purposes. 3.02 Growth Facility Funding Factor - The amount of funding per Average Daily Membership (ADM) growth sufficient to expend the funds budgeted by the State Board of Education in any specified year for those Districts who qualify as defined by Section 3.06. 3.03 Average Daily Membership (ADM)- The total number of days attended plus the total number of days absent by students in grades kindergarten through twelve (K-12) during the first three quarters of the previous school year, divided by the number of school days actually taught in the school district during that period of time/ rounded up to the nearest hundredth. 3.04 Average Daily Membership Growth (ADMG)-The difference between the ADM for the previous year and the ADM for first quarter of the current year. 3.05 State Average ADM Growth- The difference between the total previous year ADM for all school districts and the ADM for all school districts for the first quarter of the current year. 3.06 Qualifying School Districts - The school districts whose ADM growth exceeds the state average ADM growth and which have a Department of Education approved facilities needs assessment justification. 4.00 Calculation 4.01 For districts qualifying for growth facility funding, multiply the Average Daily Membership Growth (ADMG) times the ratio of total funds available for allocation divided by the total increase in student's in those local school districts eligible for growth facilities funding. 5.00 Funds Carried Forward 5.01 Funds may be carried forward but shall remain restricted to purchases defined in Section 3.01. 1.00 Arkansas Department of Education Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing the Distribution of Student Growth Funding Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations governing the distribution of Student Growth Funding. 1.02 These regulations are epacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Arkansas Code Annotated 6-11-105 (Repl. 1993) and 6-20-305 (1995 Supp.). 2.00 Purpose 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to establish criteria by which the State Department of Education will distribute student growth funding. 3.00 Definitions 3.0 Student Growth Funding - The amount of state financial aid provided to each local school district from the funds made available for that purpose. 4.00 Calculation 4.01 Student Growth Funds shall be calculated as the base local revenue per student multiplies by eighty hundredths (.80) times the increase, if any, in such local school district's average daily membership for the first two quarters of the current year over the local school district's average daily membership for the previous year. 5.00 Funding Distribution 5.01 By December 30th of each year the Department of Education shall distribute seventy five percent (75%) of student growth funds to districts calculated on the increase in the first quarter average daily membership in the current year over the local school district's average daily membership for the previous year. 5.02 Upon completion of the calculation of each local school district's average daily membership for the first two quarters of the current year, the Department of Education shall distribute the balance of student growth funding.  5.00 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING SPECIAL EDUCATION EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS SPECIAL EDUCATION 5.01 CALCULATmG TIIE EXPENDITURE FOR SERVICES ON BEIM:LF OF STUDENTS 1.vITII DISABILITIES 5.01.1 BASIC EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT TO BENEFIT SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS 5.01.1.1 The flfflOttnt to be e'll:pended fur serviees ttn:d sttpports thttt direedy ttn:d indireed, benefit stttdents eYalttttted as speeial edttetttion students in aeeordttn:ee with e'll:isting federal ttt1:d state lttVvs ttn:d Department of Edttetttion regttltttions is ealettlttted as fulloN: A. Caleulttte a three ,ear a.erage pereentttge not to e'll:eeed hvelve and one half (12.5%), based on the three (3) im:meditttely preeeding Deeember 1 eottnts of students in speeial edttetttion (in the distriet)\nand B. Mttltiply the three year a. erage pereentage not to e'll:eeed tv, el  e ttn:d one half (12.5%) time the aterage dail) membership (of the distriet) and mttltiply the resttlt times sil\u0026lt;ty futtr httndredths (.64) times the Base Loeal Reventte Per Student. 5.01 ~ CALCULATING THE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT FOR eN BEHALF OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS 5.01.r:-1 The minimum budgeted expenditure per capita on behalf of special education students must be equal to the expenditure requirement for the most recent fiscal year for which information is available, consistent with maintenance of effort requirements under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 5.01 .2.2 For loeal edttetttion ageneies v.'hose ealettltttion is greater thttn: the most reeent fiseal , ear fur v,hieh infurmation is a'vailable, the loeal edttetttion agene, mttst bttdget the inereased fl:fflottnt or five pereent (5%) more than the most reeent foeal year fur v,'hieh infurmtttion is !l\"tailable, .vhiehe .'er is the lesser amottnt. Any loeal edttetttion ageney may ehoose te e}ff'end more than the mini:mttm reei:ttired e'll:penditure. 5.01.2.3 ror local cth1cation a!!\ncncics v hosc calculation in 5.01.l is less than the c\u0026gt;tpcnditurc in most recent fiscal )CM fer v hich information is a.ailablc, the local education agcnc) must bttdget an amottnt eqttal to the e\u0026gt;tpenditttres of the most recent fiscal year fur v hieh information is a.ailable throttgh any combination of state and local funds. 5.02 ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES 5.02.1 MEETING THE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 5 .02.1.1 Any expense incurred by a local education agency as a result of providing special education and related services to eligible individuals with disabilities may be budgeted and counted as meeting the expenditure requirement. 5.02.1.2 Maintenance and operating costs of a district may be charged as special education expenses on a pro-rated basis consistent with the instructions for completing the consolidated state and federal application for the use of funds under the IDEA. 5.02.1.3 Costs for building and/or upgrading facilities for special education services may be charged as special education expenses on a pro-rated basis consistent with the instructions for completing the consolidated state and federal application for the use of funds under the IDEA. 5.02.1.4 A local education agency may count for purposes of meeting the minimum expenditure any expenditures for services/supports which benefit students with disabilities including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: A. Broad-based staff development activities which provide staff with skills and knowledge that will improve instruction for all children. B. Instructional materials and supplies, including technology, which will enhance the learning environment and improve instruction for all children. C. Trained instructional paraprofessionals to increase the ability of the teacher to address the diverse learning and behavioral needs of all students within the classroom or other instructional setting. D. Specialized staff, such as school psychology specialists and licensed social workers, to increase access to specialized services that may be needed to meet the diverse learning and behavioral needs of all students within a building or district.  .. E. Specialized services for students with diverse learning and behavioral needs who may not be identified as eligible students under the IDEA. F. Special Education and related services to eligible students with disabilities, ages 3 to 5 ( or kindergarten), may be counted to meet the minimum expenditure requirement. G. Pre-referral interventions for students not yet identified as eligible students with disabilities under the IDEA. H. Services for students who are qualified under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but who are not eligible under the IDEA. I. Services and support for students exiting special education services who are no longer receiving services in accordance with an IEP. 5.03 PROVISION FOR WAIVER 5.03.1 Distriets may ela:im a.n e,teeptien frem the htel.e a:nd ene ha:lfpereent (12.5%) bttsed en the three yea:r tt. erage Deeember 1 ehild em:mts if the distriet ettn pretide deeumenttttien thttt (1) the distriet htts high gro1tth in the distriet inelttding tt gre wth in the nttmber ef students reeei ving speeittl edttetttien serviees, er (2) the tt't erttge dttily membership ef the distriet is se sma:H thttt ttsing the 12.5% ettp .. ill athersely ttffeet the distriet's bttdget for speeittl edttetttien servtees. 5.03.2 A eemmittee ..-ill retiew the requests for wa:iver a.nd make reeem:menda:tiens te the Arka.nsa:s Depttr..ment ef Edttetttien for ttetien. 5:-B4 WAIVER OF STATE AND LOCAL EXPENDITURES FOR COMPLIANCE 5.03 WITH FEDERAL NONSUPPLANT 5:-B4:+ Local education agency applications for federal funds under the IDEA must meet 5.03.1 the nonsupplanting requirements in 34 Cede ef Federttl Regttltttiens 300.230. the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA. 1997). 5.04.2 Alleua:nee is mttde in 34 CFR 300.230(b)(I) ttnd (ii) for: 5.03.2 Section 613(a)(2)(B) of the 1997 IDEA states: a local educational agency may reduce the level of expenditures where such reduction is attributable to: Al the voluntary departure. by retirement or otherwise. or departure for just cause. of special education personnel: ID decrease in the emollment of children with disabilities: Q the termination of the oblii:ation of the ai:ency. consistent with this part. to provide a proi:ram or special education to a particular child with a disability that is an exceptionally costly program, as determined by the State educational agency, because the child: ill has left the jurisdiction of the agency: QU has reached the age at which the obligation of the agency to provide a free appropriate public education to the child has terminated: or illD no longer needs such program of special education: or ID the termination of costly expenditures for long-term purchases, such as the acquisition of equipment or the construction of school facilities. A. deereases in enrollment of children nith disabilities, ftnd B. ustmlly large amounts offttnds expended fer such long term pUi'f'OScs as the acquisition of equipment and the construction of school facilities. 5. 04 .3 Additional allo .vftnec Wt ill be considered fer high costs associated .v-ith stttdcnts in residential or other high cost placements that arc no longer rcceirting such scniccs from the local education agency n'ftich inctHTed the costs the prc1tious year. 5-:G4:4 To qualify for an allowance under 5.05.2(B) 5.03.2(0) a district must incur the i.0.3..J. cost within a single year rather than amortize the cost against the district's required expenditure as is currently provided within the consolidated application for the use of state and federal funds for special education. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 Sl ATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. AR KANSAS 72201 -1071 (~OJ ) M,~--1-1 75 RAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: FIN-98-117 Page: I of~ Date: September 11 , 1997 Forward Copies To: Type of Memo: Regulatory Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Response Required By: Those Affected Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Transfers of Students/Relations with other Schools Petition for Transfer of Students Index Code: LB Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-316, 6-18-317, and 6-18-318 Contact Person: Sheri Davis Phone No: 682-4258 Enclosed is a Petition for Transfer of Students form. You may make copies of this form for your use or request copies from the Department of Education when necessary. In compliance with Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-3 I 6, please make note of the following: I. Forms for use in transferring children from one (I) school district to another shall be provided by the Department of Education. Please use the attached form\nit supersedes all other transfer forms. Old forms will no longer be accepted. It is necessary for all signatures and effective dates to be completed before approval. 2. After the petition has been approved by the board of directors of the resident school district and the board of directors of the receiving district, copies of transfers shall be filed by the receiving district with the office of the county clerk, with the administrative offices of the respective school districts, and with the Department of Education. 3. This legal transfer of a student from one ( 1) district to another places the responsibility for the education of the student on the receiving district and permits the recei\\'ing district to count these children in a\\'erage daily membership for state aid purposes. Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-317 states: \"(a) Boards of director of local school districts arc prohibited from granting legal transfers in the following situations: (I) Where either the resident or the receiving district is under a desegregation-related court order or has ever been under such a court STATE BOARD ot EDl'C'ATION: C'halnnan WILLIAM U t'ISHt'.R, Paraio.W  Vkt Chairman Ll'KF. GORD\\ , Van Bunn l\\.ltmMn: EDWJ!lt B. ALDERSO!I, JR., EJ Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocrn  JoNUJ CAl.DWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXO'-, .\\rkadelplua .JAMES Mel.ARTY Ill, !'icwport  BETTY PlCKETT, Conway  RIC'HARD \u0026lt;. SMITH, JR., McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSO!'i, JR., Tuarkana  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rock  ANITA YATES, BaltonvWe An Equal Opportunity Employer Director's Communication No. FIN-98-117 September 11, 1997 Page 2 of2 order\nand (2) The transfer in question would negatively affect the racial balance of that district which is or has been under such a court order.\" The transfer form is accompanied by an affidavit on the reverse side of the form. Each member of both boards must sign the affidavit stating that the transfer does not violate the prohibition set forth in subsection (a) of this section. Any district not currently under a desegregation-related court order but which has been under such a court order in the past may apply to the State Board of Education for a waiver of the prohibition set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-318. PETITION FOR TRANSFER OF STUDENTS - STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF _______________ _ TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE _________________________ _ (Resident School District) I, ________________ , petition that my children or wards, as listed below, now residing in the ____________________ School District in _________ County, Arkansas, be transferred to the _________________ School District in _________ County, Arkansas, for educational purposes under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-316 authorizing such a transfer, effective the ___ day of ____ _ 19 __ . NAME AGE NAME AGE (Signature of Petitioner) CONSENT OF RESIDENT DISTRICT The Board of Directors of _______________ School District of ____________ _ County, consents to have the student (s) listed above transferred from said school district. Date Board Authorized Transfer President of School Board CONSENT OF SERVICING DISTRICT The Board of Directors of ______________ School District of _____________ _ County, consents to have the student (s) listed above transferred to said School District. Date Board Authorized Transfer President of School Board File approved copies with: (1) resident district, (2) servicing district, (3) county clerk and (4) Department of Education, Local Fiscal Services, Room 202-A, Little Rock, AR 72201. If the school districts are in different counties, copies should be filed with both county clerks. FIN-09-00-016 9/97 (See reverse side) TRANSFER OF STUDENTS AFFIDAVIT According to Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-317: \"(a) Boards of directors of local school districts are prohibited from granting legal transfers in the following situations: (1) Where either the resident or the receiving district is under a desegregation-related court order or have ever been under such a court order\nand (2) The transfer in question would negatively affect the racial balance of that district which is or has been under such a court order.\" Whereas, the Board of Directors of ____________ School District, in _________ County (resident district), and the Board of Directors of School District, in ________ _ County (servicing district), have agreed to have the student(s) listed below transferred ____________ , 19 _ , and in granting this transfer have in no way violated Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-317. Name Age Name Age RESIDENT DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS' SERVICING DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS' SIGNATURES SIGNATURES FIN-09-00-016 9/97 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK . ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501 l 6b2-.l -Pj RAYMOND SIMON. Director NO: ACC-98-021 Page: 1 of2 Date: September 11, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-op Directors Other: Special Education Supervisors Type of Memo: Administrative Response Required By: All There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability: Frank Anthony Associate Director, Special Education: Diane Sydoriak Subject: Special Education Programs Special Education Program Approval and Required Data Collection Regulatory Authority: 34 CFR 300.382\n300.600 Contact Person: ADE Area Supervisors Clent Holly Susie B. Nelson Index Code: IlIBA Phone No: (501) 682-4225 (501) 682-4223 (501) 682-4222 Enclosed is a data collection packet which contains forms and instructions for special education program approval and needs assessments for personnel and inservice training. The packet is designed to consolidate data collection activities, thus reducing the burden on district personnel for reporting required data throughout the year. To expedite the reporting process, information on your Local District Special Education Summary Form and Special Education Service Provider Form submitted for FY 1996-97 has been copied and is being provided for verification only. The Local District Special Education Summary Form will provide information needed to approve your district's special education program for FY 1997-98. Only students identified as disabled and who are receiving special education services in approved programs may be counted for the calculation of special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B. Districts may also use information submitted on this form to analyze technical as5istance needs in special education. (over) STATE BOARD Of' EDUCATION: Chairman - WILLIAM b. tt:\u0026gt;Ht.k, l'anio..W  Vlu Chairman - LUKE GORD\\-, Vlln Buron Mmben: EDWIN 8. ALDERSON, JR., El Dondo  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocn  JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant  MARTHA DIXOili, Ari\u0026lt;adlplua ,JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., M\u0026lt;Gehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON. JR .. Tn  rbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttl, Rock  ANITA YATES. BentonvW An Equal Opportunity Employu Director's Communication No.: ACC-98-021 Page 2 of2 Following the receipt and review of the special education program approval information, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) Area Supervisors will notify district superintendents as to the status of their special education program. If a program is not approved, recommendations for obtaining approval will be provided. The district must then submit a revised Local District Special Education Summary Form for reconsideration. Questions concerning the Local District Special Education Summary Form should be directed to the ADE Special Education Area Supervisor. The two (2) additional forms (Special Education Personnel Needed and Inservice Training Needs Survey), in conjunction with the Special Education Service Provider Form, will provide information needed to respond to annual federal data reporting requirements mandated by PL 94-142, Part Band Part D. These data may also be used to determine manpower trends in special education and to determine the potential supply of personnel in the present and future. Information provided on the Inservice Training Needs Survey will provide a basis for establishing state priorities for inservice training topics and audiences. If you have questions about the Special Education Service Provider Form contact Clent Holly. Contact Susie Nelson if you have questions about the Special Education Personnel Needed or Inservice Training Needs Survey Forms. The completed forms are due on or before October 1, 1997, and should be forwarded to: bt Arkansas Department of Education Special Education Grants and Data Management 4 Capitol Mall, Room 105-C Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 INSTRUCTIONS PART/ LOCAL DISTRICT SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM SUMMARY FORM A computer printout of the FY 1996-97 Local District Special Education Summary Form is enclosed in the Superintendent's packet only. Changes for FY 1997-98 should be made with a red pen on this form, signed by the Superintendent and Special Education Supervisor and returned to the address listed in the enclosed memo. Please ensure that changes for .l!ll data points are indicated (e.g., race, gender, per period range). Incomplete forms will be returned, thus delaying the approval process. If there is not enough space on the computer printout to add new units, please use the enclosed blank computer form for that purpose. ITEM I Identify each unit by placing the appropriate Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) of the position in the corresponding box, which is identified on the form as item \"I\" (i .e., 1.0 for FTE). A teacher serving students in two settings (i .e., resource room, consulting teacher) should be listed under ~ setting with the corresponding FTE for each setting. A resource room teacher or speech therapist providing services on different campuses within the same district should combine his/her caseload district wide and list under resource room or speech therapy. If, on the other hand, two or more districts share a teacher or a speech therapist, each district is responsible for reporting the FTE of the position under the appropriate item I category. To determine the FTE for a teacher assigned to the integrated classroom model (ICM), calculate the percentage of students with disabilities (up to one third of the total class size). Refer to Informational Director's Communication No. 93-250 and Administrative Director's Communication No. 94-196 for additional information. This FTE should be placed in the Resource Room column. ITEM IT Utilizing the following codes, identify the categorical unit type of each teacher. A unit is only considered categorical if 100% of the students served in the unit have the same disability. Classes composed of students with various disabilities are considered non-categorical (NC) programs. Teachers in these classrooms should be entered as NC under Item II. AU Autism DIB - Deaf/Blindness HI - Hearing Impairment MR - Mental Retardation MID - Multiple Disabilities OI Orthopedic Impairment OHI Other Health Impairment SED - Serious Emotional Disturbance ITEMID SI SLD TBI VI Speech or Language Impairment Specific Learning Disability Traumatic Brain Injury Visual Impairment Enter the level of teacher unit according to the following codes: ITEM IV E MS JH SH - Elementary Middle School Junior High Senior High JE - Junior High and Elementary JS - Junior and Senior High SE - Senior High and Elementary All - Elementary Through Senior High For each unit position listed which reflects a personnel change, red line existing personnel information. List the name that appears on each teacher's certificate or license, last name first. Use a red pen to delete positions no longer in existence. Enter the Special Education Supervisor's name only if he/she has instructional duties part of the day. New units may be added on the computer printout as space allows. Do not list here other types of purchased services providers. Do not list names of aides or other noncertified support staff. Do not send copies of teacher contracts. ITEMV Enter the Social Security Number of school personnel listed. For purchased service speech therapists, list licensure number or, if not applicable, Social Security Number. Please check for accuracy. ITEM VI Enter \"a, b, c, or d\" in Column VI according to personnel certification status, as follows: a. A teacher in his/her first year of teaching special education in Arkansas, but not fully certified, who has: - a valid Arkansas Teaching Certificate, - an approved Deficiency Removal Plan (DRP) and will have a minimum of 12 hours in special education no later than the end of the third quarter. 2 b. A teacher in his/her second year of teaching special education in Arkansas, but not fully certified, who has: - a valid Arkansas Teaching Certificate, - an approved DRP and will have a minimum of21 hours in special education no later than the end of the third quarter. (See note at the end ofltem VI.) c. A teacher in his/her third year of teiiching special education in Arkansas with more than 21 hours in special education, but not fully certified, who has: - a valid Arkansas Teaching Certificate, - an approved DRP, and - a letter from the Arkansas Department of Education recommending to the State Board of Education that additional time be granted to meet certification deficiencies. A copy of this letter must be attached to the Special Education Program Summary Form. Failure to do so could result in partial or conditional approval of a special education program. d. Full certification in special education or appropriate licensure. NOTE: If certification is not obtained by the end of the two-year period, a letter from the Superintendent to the Associate Director of Special Education must be written indicating the special circumstances and requesting additional time. The letter will be reviewed by the ADE. The ADE will recommend to the State Board of Education whether or not the district should receive additional time to meet certification deficiencies. ITEMVIl Enter the number of hours the staff member is engaged in special education instruction, including up to one allowable planning period. ITEM VIII Enter the total number of students identified as disabled currently assigned to each position under the \"TL\" column. This total should equal the sum of the five columns which follow it. Designate the number of students served by category as follows: BM - Black Male BF - Black Female ITEM IX WM - White Male WF - White Female Enter the per period range for cl ass size (i.e., 2-5). 3 HM - Hispanic Male HF - Hispanic Female ITEMX For personnel listed where an aide is assigned, enter for part-time aide or E for full-time aide. ITEM XI Indicate with an \"X'' in this column any personnel providing speech therapy as a purchased service. ITEMXIl Indicate with an \"X'' in this column any personnel assigned to the integrated classroom model. To complete this form, obtain the appropriate signatures and date the form. PERSONNEVPROGRAM STANDARDS RELATIVE TO PROGRAM APPROVAL I. PROVISIONS FOR QUALIFIED PROVIDERS A. TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROGRAM APPROVAL Certification of teachers for accreditation is not the same as the qualification requirements for program approval. The requirements for program approval are for the purpose of funding. For certification requirements related to accreditation, please contact an ADE Field Service Specialist. Special education teachers not fully certified in special education MUST forward a copy of their most current transcript and an approved DRP to their ADE Area Supervisor, Special Education. Failure to do so could result in the district's program not being fully approved. As course work is completed, an updated transcript must be forwarded to the ADE Area Supervisor, Special Education. Course work should be completed in a timely manner. If a situation arises which prohibits the completion of course work by the end of the third quarter, an extension to June 1, 1998, may be granted if requested in writing by the superintendent. This request should be made to the ADE Area Supervisor, Special Education. Approval of a DRP must be obtained from the Office of Teacher Education and Licensure, ADE. (See Regulatory Director's Memo No. 90-46.) The following is an excerpt from Regulatory Director's Memo No. 87-26 which lists the guidelines to be followed when correcting certification deficiencies: 1. Individuals who are completing courses under an approved DRP must complete a minimum of21 hours during the two-year period following the filing of their plan. 4 2. If certification is not obtained at the end of the two-year period, the ADE will recommend to the State Board of Education whether the district should receive additional time to meet certification deficiencies. 3. Enrollment in a college or university to complete course work must commence either the semester the person is employed or the one which immediately follows. B . . SUBSTITUTES When a fundable teacher is unable to fulfill a contract, the district may count the cost of hiring a substitute as a special ducation expenditure using the following criteria: I. Substitute (non-certified or certified, but not in special education): For the purpose of special education program approval a substitute teacher should not be used for more than forty-five ( 45) consecutive days in the same position unless an emergency situation prevails at which time permission may be granted for a total of ninety (90) days by the State Department of Education, Special Education. 2. Substitute employed as a speech therapist must meet minimum ADE certification or licensure requirements. C. QUALIFIED EXAMINERS Examiners utilized by districts must be qualified as required on pages 2-4 and 2-5 of \"Program Standards and Eligibility Criteria for Special Education.\" (Hereafter referred to as the Program Standards.) Use of student evaluators is discussed on page 2-5 of the Program Standards. The name of each examiner ( or supervisor of examiners, if contracting with a group) is required for verifying qualifications. As a result of Ark. Code Ann. 17-24- 101 and 102, Licensed Professional Counselors, whose training warrants inclusion of psychological testing on their Statement oflntent, may be employed as examiners by public schools in Arkansas. Il. CONTRACTEDPROGRAMS Program approval for provision of services by private providers is determined by the application submitted by the private provider to the Department of Education, Special Education. Approved programs are listed in the Arkansas Education Directory. The Local Education Agency is not responsible for seeking approval of the private provider\nhowever, districts may not count students served for State Equalization Aid or IDEA Part B funds unless the program providing services has been approved. 5 Local school districts that purchase educational services for their students from another district or approved special education program must complete a tuition agreement which is ultimately approved by the Department of Education, Finance and Administration. Ill. TEACHER/PUPIL RATIO A. TEACHER/PUPIL RA TIO: CASELOAD 1. Refer to Program Standards page 7-1, for maximum caseloads. 2. Exceptions to the stated teacher/pupil caseload are detailed on pages 7-1 and 7-2 of Program Standards. 3. Waiver from the Maximum Teacher/Pupil Caseload a. Should an emergency situation arise creating the need to request a waiver from the maximum teacher/pupil ratio, the district must submit a letter to its Area Supervisor stating the reason(s) for exceeding the maximum teacher/pupil ratio and outlining a remediation plan. The Area Supervisor will forward a letter approving or disapproving the variance. b. Ten percent (10%) of the teacher/pupil ratio is the maximum variance approvable before funding is affected. For example, the noncategorical teacher/pupil ratio is 1.25\nten percent resource room maximum variance equals 2.5. When approved, the teacher/pupil ratio may increase to 1 :28. For a self-contained maximum teacher/pupil ratio of 1: 15, a ten percent (10%) variance equals 1.5. When approved, the teacher/pupil ratio may increase to 1: 17. c. Prior to approval for the ten percent (10%) variance, a full-time teacher aide must be employed for that class by the requesting district. For a I :6 classroom, a fulltime aide is already required\ntherefore, an additional aide must be employed before a district's waiver will be approved. d. If a district fails to secure approval for a variance of the teacher/pupil ratio, yet exceeds the teacher/pupil ratio outlined in Program Standards, page 7-2, the district's program will not be considered an approved program. Consequently, state and federal funds cannot be generated by the nonapproved program. e. Under no circumstances will a waiver be granted for an increase in maximum teacher/pupil ratios for speech/language therapists or teachers serving students in indirect placement. 6 B. TEACHER/PUPIL RA TIO: PER PERIOD CLASS SIZE NOTE: For itinerant instruction (excluding speech therapy) and resource services, a maximum of five (5) students per period, the number served should be as near to five (5) as possible Districts will NOT be cited for noncompliance with state standards when the per period class size is eight (8) students without an aide, if conditions warrant such an exception. However, the adopted guideline of five (5) students per period is considered to be best educational practice and should be adhered to whenever possible. Additional exceptions to the adopted guideline of fiv~ (5) students are: 1. Pre-vocational and vocational students who attend one class per day in the area of personal/social adjustment. 2. When the teacher has an aide to assist in follow-through activities, the per period load may be adjusted upward not to exceed 40% of the initial teacher/pupil ratio listed on page 7-1 of Program Standards. For example, the per period number may be increased to ten (10) students for noncategorical classes. The number of students served per period may not be increased beyond the allowable adjustments noted in 1 and 2, regardless of the approved maximum caseload, inclusive of waiver granted. C. INDIRECT SERVICES CASELOAD Districts will comply with guidelines issued by the ADE, Special Education Unit, for caseloads and services for consulting teachers providing indirect services. INSTRUCTIONS PART II SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE PROVIDERS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED FORM A computer printout of the FY 1996-97 Special Education Service Providers Form is enclosed in the Superintendent's packet only. ITEMS I AND II Make changes in personnel on the computer printout with a red pen. List only personnel which are not included on the Local Special Education Program Summary Form (Part I). Obtain appropriate signatures and return to the address listed in the enclosed memo. Please note: Social security numbers are not necessary for non-certified personnel. 7 ITEM Ill Enter \"a\" or \"b\" to indicate certification or licensure status, as follows . Use NI A for employees not requiring certification or licensurc. a. holds full certification or licensure b. holds valid Arkansas Teaching Certificate and an approved DRP ITEM IV List the FTE for each person listed in the appropriate service provider column, including purchased service personnel, based on a 40-hour work week. The FTE for a speech-language pathology assistant/aide should be placed in the Teacher Aide column. ITEMY Indicate with an \"X\" in this column any purchased service personnel. ITEM VI Indicate with an \"X\" in this column any personnel assigned as a speech-language pathology assistant. ITEM VII Indicate with an \"X\" in this column any personnel assigned as a speech-language pathology aide. INSTRUCTIONS PART III SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL NEEDED FORM Complete identifying information at the top of the form. One form per district must be submitted. COLUMN A Indicate the current position vacancies by FTE that exist for the district. If two or more districts share personnel, each district is responsible for reporting its FTE of the position. 8 COLUMNB Indicate with a plus(+) and FTE your projections for additional personnel by position type, or a minus (-) and FTE your projections for any decrease in personnel for each year listed. PART IV INSERVICE TRAINING NEEDS SURVEY Complete identifying information at the top of the form. One form per cooperative or district should be submitted. If a school district has its own early childhood program, submit only one form with needs indicated in the appropriate columns and rows. Early childhood programs in educational cooperatives will complete a separate form. For each target group in your cooperative or district needing training, select three (3) inservice training areas from the Inservice Training Areas list. Enter the content code of the in service training area and indicate number of personnel to be trained in the designated columns. Completed forms should be returned to the address listed in the cover memo. 9 SPECIAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL NEEDED 1997-98 School Year - School District___________ County _____ Date ___ _ LEA# ---- Person completing this form ________________ Phone __________ _ COLUMN A COLUMNB NO.OF Net Change in Position(+ or - and nwnber) CURRENT DESCRIPTION OF POSITIONS VACANCIES 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 I. Supervisors/ Administrators 2. Mildly Disabled 3. Mod./Prof Disabled TEACHERS 4. Ser. Emot. Disturbed OF 5. Visually Impaired SPECIAL EDUCATION 6. Deaf/Hard of Hearing STIJDENTS 7. Mentally Retarded 8. Leaming Disability 9. Physically Handicap. I 0. Speech/Language Pathologist 11. Teachers of Preschool Disabled 12. Occupational Therapist 13. Physical Therapist 14. Adaptive PE Teacher 15. Rec. \u0026amp; Therapeutic Rec. Spec. 16. Diagnostic \u0026amp; Evaluation Staff I 7. Interpreters 18. Psychologist 19. Rehabilitation Counselors 20. Audiologist 21 . Paraprofessional (Teacher Aides) 22. School Social Worker 23 . Job Coach/Vocational Ed. Teacher 24. Workstudy Coordinator 25. Counselors 26. Other Professional Staff 27. Non-professional Staff - 34 CFR 300. 382 Part ID ADE Form No. SPED-00-00-00lR 8/97 IN SERVICE TRAINING NEEDS SURVEY Arkansas Department of Education Special Education/ Preschool (FY98) Co-op/School District ____________ _ LEA# ____ _ Education Service Cooperative your district belongs to: _______________ _ Name and title of person completing this ~orm: __________________ _ Date:____________ Phone: ______________ _ No. To No. To No. To Target Group Content Be Content Be Content Be Code Trained Code Trained Code Trained LEA Supervisors Early Childhood Coordinators Superintendents Co-op Director Principals Special Education Teachers Pre-School Spec Ed Teachers Speech/Language Pathologists Regular Education Teachers Regular Pre School Teachers Parents/Surrogate Parents Volunteers/Peer Tutors Paraprofessionals Job Coaches School Psych. Specialists/ Psych. Examiners Support Personnel (School Counselors, Nur -es, Phys./Occup. Therapists, etc.) Operations Personnel (Secretarial, Clerical, Maintenance, Transportation, Food Service, etc.) Head Start Other (Specify) 34 CFR 300.382 Part IV ADE Form No. SPED-01-00-0l0R 8/97 Content Code IN-SERVICE TRAINING AREAS (for students with Disabilities ages 3-21) 00 I Applying federal, state and local regulations to the provisions of Special Education and Related Services (laws, procedural safeguards, etc.). 002 Selecting assessment/diagnostic instrument, techniques or procedures 003 Interpreting assessment results and developing recommendations for intervention 004 Developing leadership skills to facilitate change (including team building) 005 Developing integrated curricula and programs for students with severe/profound disabilities 006 Utilizing strategic planning for developing a local CSPD plan 007 Integrating students with disabilities into regular school-based programs (non-academic activities, classroom modifications, learning styles, placement options, consulting teacher model and teacher assistance team model) 008 Applying classroom organization and management techniques 009 Using paraprofessionals, peer tutors and/or volunteers in educating all students with disabilities 010 Involving parents in a parent-school partnership 011 Developing conflict resolution and negotiation skills 012 Using effective conferencing skills 013 Developing curricula for students in secondary special education 014 Assessing speech/language disorders, developing intervention strategies (i.e. to include integrated speech therapy) 015 Assessing communication skills and implementing augmentative-assistive systems, including non-symbolic communication 016 Developing and implementing preschool programs on a public school campus 017 Developing and implementing programs for preschool children with disabilities (3 to 5 years), including consulting teacher model in preschool special education (see #7 reg.) 018 Training for transition of children with disabilities from Part H to preschool programs 019 Developing strategies for transitioning preschool students with disabilities to kindergarten 020 Training for transitioning students with disabilities from school to adult options 021 Developing strategies for returning students from restrictive settings to local school building sites 022 Other (Specify) Arkansas DIRECfOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 -1071  (501) 682-4-P.5 RAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: FIN-98-114 Page: 1 of 1 Date: September 11, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Type of Memo: Administrative Response Required By: All Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Relations with Election Authorities Index Code: KLB Results of the Annual School Election, September 16, 1997 Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-115 \u0026amp; 6-14-121 as amended by Act 443 of 1997 Contact Person: Yvonne Williams Phone No: 682-4485 Each year the office of Local Fiscal Services collects results of the annual school election of each school district and compiles a state summary. Please complete and return this fonn with a copy of the ballot (regular or absentee) by September 30. 1997. The date for run-off elections will be October 7, 1997. RESULTS OF THE ANNUAL SCHOOL ELECTION, SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 I. Number voting for and against the proposed millage ___ FOR ___ AGAINST. 2. Please place a check mark on the ballot beside the name of the board member in each position who won the election. 3. If there were other issues on the ballot, please indicate if they passed or failed . 4. TOT AL MILLS voted in the September 1996 election _______ _ 5. MILLS voted in the September 16, 1997 election: Dedicated M\u0026amp;O(Capital Outlay) ____ Debt Service ___ Total Mills __ _ Signature of Superintendent School District and LEA # District Telephone Number County Please return to: Arkansas Department of Education, Local Fiscal Services, #4 Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ST ATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: O..U- - WILLIAM B. FISHER, P.........  Va~ LUICE GORDY, Van Bun,n M.,.llen: EDWINB. A.LDERSON,JR., l!IDo,...o  CARLE.BAGGETT,11.opn  JoN!LLCALDWU.L...,_  MARTHADIXOl'i,Arudlphsa JAMES McLARTY Ill, N-,or1  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD r. SMITH, Jll., Mee-. . LEWIS THOMPSON, JR .. Tn  run  SHERRY WALKER, Uttlo Rock  ANITA VA TES, Jlaloevlllo An Equal Oppommlty Employor Ari\u0026lt;ansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4-P.$ RAYMOND SIMON, Director Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Other: Title I Coordinators NO: SI-98-019 Page: 1 of 1 Date: September 11, 1997 Type of Memo: Administrative Response Required By: All There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, School Improvement and Instructional Support: Frank Anthony Subject: Research/ Administrative Reports Index Code: CL Title I, ESEA Quarterly Report of Cash Distribution Regulatory Authority: 34 CFR Part 80.40 Contact Person: Brenda Irvin Phone No: 682-4482 Enclosed is your Title I Quarterly Report of Cash Distribution for the second quarter. Instructions for completion of the form may be found on the reverse side. Please be sure to complete and return to the Federal Finance Office prior to September 20, 1997. PLEASE RETURN A COPY TO: Arkansas Department of Education Federal Finance 4 Capitol Mall, Room 204-A Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: C'llalfflWI - WILLIAM H. FISHER, Para1.W  VluCllaifflllUI - LUKE GORDY, Van BuN'n Mtmlien: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Ro1n  JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant  MARTHA DIX01', Ariladtlphi JAMES McLARTY JJJ, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tn  rbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttlt Rock  ANITA VATES. BeatonvWt An Equal Opportunity Employtr Second Quarter TITLE I - !ASA QUARTERLY REPORT OF CASH DISTRIBUI'ION Item 1: Budget Needs for the Second Quarter category A. Total Budgeted By Object B. Expenditures 07-01 to 09-30 by Object C. Total Budget Needs 10-01 to 12-31 by Object D. Remaining Available By Object Item 2: Reconciliation Employee Salaries Object 10 1 Employee Benefits Object 20 2 Purchased Services Object 30 3 A. Beginning Cash Balance 07-01 $ _______ _ B. Revenue Received 07-01 thru 09-30 $ ________ _ C. Available 07-01 through 09-30 $ ______ _ D. Expenditures Through 09-30 $ ________ _ E. Cash on Hand 09-30 $ ______ _ F. Budget Needs 10-01 thru 12-31 $ _______ _ G. Total Funds Requested this Quarter $ _______ _ (F inus E) Ite  3: Requested Funds by Month A. October B. Noveber C. Deceber D. Total Amount Requested (Must Equal Item 2--0) $ ________ _ $ _______ _ $ ________ _ $ ________ _ Materials Supplies Object 40 capitol outlay Object 50 5 Other Objects Object 60 6 Total for All Objects 4 7 FOR DEPAR.nttml' OF EDUCATION USE ONLY 1991 Ftlfids Pald 1\u0026lt;!9B Etmtir-: P'ai ii $ ________ _ $ ________ _ $ ________ _ $ _______ _ $ _______ _ $ _______ _ --------. $ _______ _ $ _______ _ $ ________ _ $ _______ _ $ ________ _ $ _______ _ $ ________ _ $ _______ _ Date Paid School District ________________________ _ County ________ _ LF.A Code Number __ _ Form ~e- red By Requir CFR Part 80.40 T~ e ADE . 0006 Phone N1111ber__,..,..---- 07/1992 Item 1: Item 2: Item 3: QUARTERLY REPORT OF CASH DISTRIBUTION INSTRUCTIONS Enter in the total amount budgeted by Object in Line A. These amounts are found in the budget on Page 3 of the approved program (Part A, Line 3 Totals). INDIRECT COST SHOULD BE INCLUDED UNDER OB.lECT 60. On Line B enter the expenditures 7-1 to 9-30 by Object. On Line Center the total budget needs of your district for the months of October, November, and December by Object. Do not request funds budgeted for Indirect Cost until June. The entries for Line Dare determined by subtracting the entries in Lines Band C from the entries in Line A. Line A Line B Line C Line D Line E Line F Line G Enter the Cash on Hand as of July 1. This amount will be on the Notice of Grant Award as well as in the district's books. Enter the total revenue you have received or expect to receive for the time period July 1 through September 30. Add cash on hand (Line A) and total revenue received (Line B). Enter sum in this blank. Enter total expenditures (expended or expected to be expended by September 30). This entry should equal Line B, Column 7 of Item 1. Subtract total expenditures (Line D) from total available (Line C) and enter cash on hand September 30. Enter total budget needs of your district for the months of October, November, and December. Subtract Line E cash on hand from Line F total budget needs this quarter to determine total funds requested. The amount requested should always be in even dollars--NO CENTS! Enter the funds needed for October, November, and December. The total is equal to Item 2, Line G, above and does not include cash on hand. TO INSURE PAYMENT IN EARLY OCTOBER, THIS FORM SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE FEDERAL FINANCE OFFICE BY SEPTEMBER 20. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARI\\.ANSAS 72201 10.,1  (501) 61-\n2 4-P5 RAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: FIN-98-116 Page: 1 of2 Date: September 11. 1997 Type of Memo: Regulatory Fonvard Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Response Required By: Those Affected There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Tuition/ Admission of onresident Students Index Code: JFAB Tuition Agreement Form Regulatory Authority: Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-202 (d) (I). 6-18-204 Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-205 (b) (I) (A), 6-18-316 (f) Contact Person: Sheri Da\\ is Phone o: 682-4258 A Tuition Agreement form is enclosed for use by those school districts which find it necessar) to purchase educational services for their students from another district or an approved special education agency. lfyou have need for such forms. please reproduce the attached form as needed. The receiving district may enter into a tuition agreement with either the resident district or the parents of the child/children involved. whereby the resident district or the parents \\\\ ill make tuition payments to the receiving district to compensate for the educational cost of the transferring student. Please refer to the above mentioned codes for conditions in enrolling a student in grades 9-12 in another district under a tuition agreement. the amount required to pay under these circumstances. and the course of action to take because of failure to pay under these and other circumstances. A tuition agreement must be approved by each district/agenc) involved. The receiving district/agency shall keep attendance records on the children attending that district/:1gency under a tuition agreement. I hese attendance records shall be reported to the resident district qua1terl) STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Chairman WILLIAM 8 . nsm.R, P n,:ould  Vk Cluunnan - Ll'KE GORD\\, \\'an Burrn '1-hmbort : EDWIN B ALDERSO!li, JR, El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Roen  JoNELl, CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA mxo, . .\\rl.adelptua .JAMES McLARTY 111, N~r1  BlsTTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., M~htt  LEWIS THOMPSO,. JR., Tnarkana  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rock  ANITA YATES. BattonvW An Equal Oppomanity Employu Director's Communication No. FIN-98-116 September 11, 1997 Page 2 of2 so the resident district will in tum have correct records to report to the Department of Education for aid purposes. After completing a tuition agreement, mail the original and three copies to the Department of Education. After reviewing the tuition agreement, the Department of Education will mail approved copies to the resident district, receiving district/agency and the county school supervisor. (File tuition agreement in quadruplicate) TUITION AGREEMENT The _______________________ (Resident District) of __________ County hereby agrees to pay to _____________ _ ___________ (Servicing District) of ____________ County tuition in the amount of$ _____ per pupil for providing educational services to its students in _______ (grades) during 19 _ -19 _ . CONDITIONS*: ________ -'-------------------- *The specifics of the agreement should be given here, i.e., whether the payment is per enrollment, ADA or ADM, for the current or previous year\nhow payment is to be made (annually, semi-annually, monthly, etc.)\nwho pays transportation and/or any other costs\nare attendance records to be furnished\nand other pertinent information. RESIDENT DISTRICT SERVICING DISTRICT (Signature, President of Board) (Signature, President of Board) (Signature, Superintendent) (Signature, Superintendent) ADDRESS ADDRESS Approved: _____________ _ Date: ________________ _ Public School District or approved Special Educational School. \"District\" may include \"Educational Cooperatives\" established pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-902 . ._end all copies to the Department of Education, Local Fiscal Services, #4 Capitol Mall, Room 202-A, ~ ittle Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071. FIN-09-00-015 9/96 ,,. - .-,,\n. - (l)1~~=-=E::\".:~=-i\\~R~~==M~s~E~N-T-0F_\nD:..:,\nE~o:.:.u:.:.:R,.:_'C:.:.JX=M:r.:.:.:u.:..:.:.i1 0~C/li.:.:.:.N::.:..N _ W, 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201:1071  (501) 682-4-P\u0026gt; RAYMOND SIMON, Director Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-op Directors Others: LEA Supervisors *EC Coordinators *Other Interested Parties NO: ACC-98-022 Page: 1 of 1 Date: September 11, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability: Frank Anthony Associate Director, Special Education: Diane Sydoriak Subject: Special Education Programs Index Code: IHBA Public Hearing: Proposed Rules and Regulations to Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation Regulatory Authority: Public Law 94-142, as amended Contact Person: Diane Sydoriak Phone No: (501) 682-4221 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with a copy of Proposed Rules and Regulations to Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation and to provide notice of the public hearing on these proposed regulations. The Public Hearing is scheduled for: October 2, 1997 10:00 AM - 12:00 Noon Auditorium of the Arkansas School for the Blind 2600 West Markham, Little Rock, AR Written comments will be taken until 4:30 PM on October 11, 1997. Written comments should be addressed to: Diane Sydoriak, Associate Director Arkansas Department of Education Special Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 105-C Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 * W\",U be maikd by Specilll Eactdlo., STATE90ARDOFl!.DUCATION: CW.---WJLUAMK.nSHl'.a. ..........  Vlee\u0026lt;::...--~GOllDY,\\ll\"ttl M-Mn: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JJl., l!'l Denllo  CARL I. L\\CGETT, llepn  Jel'IU.L CALDWa.L, .,_  MARTHA DIXON, Arilalltlphia  JAMES McLAllTY Ill, Nowport  BETTY PICKETT, c-y  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., McGdltt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tnarbna  SHERRY WALKER. UUlt Rock  ANITA YATES..___.. An f.ltual Opport.any Eaployu 1.00 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS To Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education Regulations to Implement the Braille and Large Print Textbook Appropriation. 1.02 These regulations are enacted pursuant to the State Board of Education's authority under Act I 005 of I 997. 2.00 Purpose 3.00 2.01 It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth the criteria for determining student eligibility for adaptive textbooks (i.e. braille and large print). 2.02 These regulations define the process for local school district access to such adaptive textbooks for students with visual impairments. Definitions 3.01 For the purpose of these regulations, adaptive textbooks are defined to mean braille and large print. 3.02 IDEA refers to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 3.03 IEP means the individualized education program for a student with disabilities under the IDEA. 3.04 Learning Media Assessment (LMA) authored by Koenig, A. \u0026amp; Holbrook,C. ,1995, is a structured systematic procedure used to gather information and document decisions regarding the selection of reading and writing media for students who are visually impaired. 3.05 Minnesota Braille Skills Inventory published by the Minnesota Department of Education, 1995, is a comprehensive assessment of braille skills including knowledge of braille contractions, nemeth code, foreign language codes and computer braille. 3.06 Informal Reading Inventories (IRls) as used in these regulations refers to commercially available IRis which are adapted into braille and large print and used as a part of continuing assessment to determine student progress in reading as measured by reading comprehension and reading rate. 3.07 Reading rates are measured using informal reading inventories and content texts and are one component of the data needed to determine efficiency in a student's current literacy media. 3.08 Informal functional vision assessment as used in these regulations refers to teacher observations which provide evidence of a student's use of visual ability in near and distance tasks. 4.00 Administration 4.01 The braille and large print textbook program for students with visual impairments shall be administered by the Arkansas School for the Blind in conjunction with the Arkansas Department of Education's designee from Internal Administration. 5.00 Eligibility For Adaptive Textbooks 5.01 The following criteria should be considered when determining the appropriate reading medium for students with visual impairment. 5.01.1 Observations made by, but not limited to, the classroom teacher, parent, vision teacher and regional vision consultant. 5.01 .2 Assessment by a regional vision consultant, vision teacher or reading teacher to include the following, as appropriate. 5.01 .2.1 Learning Media Assessment 5.01.2.2 Minnesota Braille Skills Inventory 5.01.2.3 informal functional vision assessment 5.01.2.4 reading rates 5.01.3 Eye specialist report detailing acuity, pathology and prognosis. 5.01.4 Media/functional vision evaluation by a low vision specialist. 5.01.5 Student's IEP team recommendation. 6.00 School District Access to Adaptive Textbooks 6.01 Local school districts must assess any student whose visual impairment adversely affects his/her educational performance as to the student's need for adaptive textbooks. 6.02 For the purpose of these regulations, the criteria stated in Section 5.00 shall be the minimum criteria for determining student eligibility. 6.03 Local school districts may seek assistance for assessing a student's need for adaptive textbooks by calling the Educational Services for Visually Impaired located at the Arkansas School for the Blind. 6.04 Following a determination that a student is eligible for adaptive textbooks, the regional vision consultant serving the local school district will approve the purchase of textbooks for each student determined eligible. 6.05 The regional vision consultant will complete an Educational Materials Center book order form and transmit the form to the Educational Materials Center at the Arkansas School for the Bltnd. 7.0 Costs 7.01 There shall be no charge to local school districts for the large print or braille textbooks, unless the book is lost or is severely damaged. 7.02 Should a textbook be lost or sustain such damage as to render the book unusable, the district will be billed for the costs associated with replacing the book. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK . ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 61i2-4-l 7 j RAYMOND ~IMOr-.. Director NO Sl-98-020 Page: l of2 Date: September 11, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Those Affected Other: Librarians There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability and School Improvement: Frank Anthony Subject: Arkansas Young Writer's Award Winners Celebration of Young Readers and Writers Banquet Regulatory Authority: None Index Code: AEB Contact Person: James A Hester Phone No: 501-682-4371 The Arkansas Young Writer's Award, sponsored by the Arkansas Elementary School Council, is completing its third year of operation. The annual banquet \"A Celebration of Young Readers and Writers\" will be held at Sherwood Forest, Sherwood on Thursday, September 25, 1997, at 6:00 p.m. Barbara Robinson, author of The Best School Year Ever, Charlie May Simon Medallion Winner, and Mary Hahn, author of Time for Andrew: A Ghost Story, Honor Book winner will do presentations at the banquet. Please see enclosed map and instructions for ordering tickets and books. Twenty-four young authors will be recognized as outstanding writers. The students being recognized are as follows: Mary Hitt Lain Lawrence Wendy Owen Marcy Tarno Lauren Bridges Brandi Aleshire Amy Cessor Jessieville Elementary Russellville Middle School Rose Bud Eiementary Maynard Elementary Benton Middle Van Cove Lakeside Middle, Lakeview \"The Wind \"How Mr. Shears Got a Job at the White House\" \"The Lucky Coin\" \"Unknown Protector\" \"Buttercup Wishes\" \"Bees\" \"At Least Somebody Loves Me\" STATE BOARD Of EDUCATION: Chairman - WILLIAM II. HSHF.R, Poraiollld  Vkt Chairman - LUKE GORD) . \\-an Buren MrmlN,n: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARI. E IIAG\u0026lt;\nETT, Roe~  JoNELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA lllXO.,, , .\\rl..od,lphia ,JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conwoy  RICHARD C'. SMITH, JR., Mc:Gehtt  LEWI~ THOMPSON, JK, l \u0026lt;\u0026gt;arl...ul  SHERRY WALKER. Uttlt Rock  ANITA YATES, S...ton~W An Equal Opportunity Employu Courtney Magness Lisa Mccullen Stahr Mangrum Heather Johnson Clarke Lindsey Gray Christie Surber Jessica Baker Nicole Billingsley Rebecca Moss Christopher William Ison Luke Rothwell Justin Burris Emily Tyson Judy Jenkins Katy Stone Brandy Trout Newark Elementary Van Cove Elementary Buffalo Island Central West Elementary College Station Elementary, Pulaski County Belwood Elementary, North Little Rock \"A Wish\" \"Relaxation\" \"Ernie, The Nerd--Yet My Best Friend\" \"What Reading Means to Me\" \"The Planet That Glowed\" L. F. Henderson Elementary, \"The Haunted House\" Ashdown Oakbrooke Elementary, Pulaski County Prescott Middle School Bright Star Elementary Cato Elementary Pulaski County \"The Tornado\" \"The Holocaust\" \"Our Darling Emrnaly\" \"It Could Happen\" Walker Elementary, Springdale \"My Trip Through The Tunnel\" Oakbrooke Elementary, Pulaski County Bright Star Elementary Maynard Elementary L. F. Henderson Elementary, Ashdown Tuckerman Elementary \"The Field\" \"The New Kid\" \"Mothers Birthday Surprise\" \"Sunsets\" \"Hiding In The Bathroom\" A CELEBRATION OF YOUNG READERS AND WRITERS BANQUET PLEASE RETURN NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 19, 1997 I/we will attend the Celebration ofYoung Readers and Writers Award Banquet on Thursday, September 25, 1997, at Sherwood Forest in Sherwood. The price is $11.00 for students and $18.00 for adults. Make checks payable to the ARKANSAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COUNCIL. PLEASE DO NOT MAIL CASH, ONLY CHECKS. Enclosed is $- -------for- ---------student reservations. En closed is $ for adult reservations. DO NOT SENT TICKET ORDERS TO SHERWOOD FOREST Your confirmation may be obtained at the registration table before the banquet. The confirmation will be under your school district name, or if it is an individual, it will be under the name of the person(s) attending the banquet. Registration will begin at 4:30. No tickets sold on site. Name Name Name School and City School and City School and City Mail to: James A. Hester, Secretary/Treasurer Arkansas Department of Education Arkansas Elementary School Council 4 Capitol Mall, Room 302-B Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 REGISTRATIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED BY SEPTEMBER 19, 1997, AND RECEIVED BY SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 I - BOOK ORDER INFORMATION I would like to order the following books to be picked up on Thursday evening, September 25, I 997, at Sherwood Forest in Sherwood. Make checks payable to the Arkansas Elementary School Council. Please do not mail cash, only checks. In the event, when your order is received all books have been sold, you will be notified by telephone of the lack of books and your check will be returned. Books can be picked up on Thursday evening, September 25, 1997, at the time of registration. Name of person purchasing books Work telephone number Name of School City THE BEST SCHOOL YEAR EVER by Barbara Robinson Enclosed is for hardback books $15 .00 each Enclosed is for aperback books $5 .00 each TIME FOR ANDREW: A GHOST STORY by Mary Hahn Enclosed is -------for --------hardback books $15.00 each Enclosed is _______ for ________ _.aperback books $5.00 each TOTAL AMOUNT ENCLOSED --------- Mail to: James A. Hester, Secretaryffreasurer Arkansas Department of Education Arkansas Elementary School Council 4 Capitol Mall, Room 302-B Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 DEADLINE FOR SENDING IN BOOK ORDERS IS SEPTEMBER 19, 1997 Lit t1e lb::k I-)'.) I-est\n1-bry.larl Ave. G mi 11.nidptl Aiq:ort 1111 W. H1ryla--cf A~. B.:-1234 Ari\u0026lt;ansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722011071  (501) 682-44 75 RAYMOND SIMON, Director Forward Copies to: Superintendents, Co-op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr. High Principals Elementary Principals NO: SI-98-021 Page: Page 1 of 1 Date: September 11, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None There are attachments to this memo. Assistant Director, School Improvement and Instructional Support: Frank Anthony Subject: Curriculum Development, Adoption and Review Index Code: IG Proposed Rules and Regulations Governing African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness Regulatory Authority: Act 326 of 1997 Contact Person: Dr. Gayle Potter Phone No.: 501-682-4558 The Arkansas Department of Education will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules and regulation for African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness. The hearing will be October 3, 1997, beginning at 1 :00 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Arch Ford Education Building in Little Rock, Arkansas. A copy of the proposed rules and regulations for African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness is attached. Written comments regarding the proposed rules and regulations will be accepted by Dr. Gayle Potter, Associate Director, Curriculum and Instruction, #4 Capitol Mall, Room 106-A, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, until October 30, 1997. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman-WILLIAM B. FISHER, Pan10.W  VluClwnnan - LUKE GORDY, Van Bun,n Mrmben: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Roa:n  JoNELL CALDWELL. Bryant  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadrlplua JAMES MtLARTY Ill, Nnrport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, JR., M~  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tnarbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rod,  ANITA YA TES, Bmtonvlllr An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS AFRICAN-AMERICAN HISTORY AND RACIAL AND ETHNIC AWARENESS 1.00 African-American History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness 1.01 These regulations shall be known as the Arkansas Department of Education Regulations Concerning AfricanAmerican History and Racial and Ethnic Awareness. 1.02 The State Board of Education enacted these regulations pursuant to its authority under Act 326 of 1997. 2.00 Purpose of Regulations 2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to establish a task force to select instructional resource materials appropriate for teaching African-American history in all grade clusters in kindergarten through grade twelve in the public schools to advance in the training of educators in racial and ethnic awareness. 3.00 Definitions 3.01 Training: training of school district personnel in the use of instructional materials combined with the development of their greater awareness of ethnic and racial differences. 3.02 Black History Task Force: the only group commissioned to recommend instructional resource materials for use in African-American History. 4.00 Composition of seven person task force 4.01 These regulations indicate that the seven (7) members of the Black History Task Force shall be appointed by the chairperson of the Black History Advisory Committee of the Arkansas History Commission. 4.02 These regulations mandate that the Black History Task Force of seven (7) members is to be composed of classroom teachers representing each of the grade clusters in K-12 and an historian from an institution of higher learning. Members shall represent the regional diversity of Arkansas. 5.00 Reviewing bodies 5.01 For the purposes of these Rules and Regulations, a \"reviewing body\" is any person or organization that would serve to evaluate or critique the work of the Black History Task Force. 5.02 These regulations maintain that the Black History Task Force will not be composed of any person from any reviewing body, such as the Arkansas Department of Education or the Black History Advisory Committee. 6.00 Distribution of Funds 6.01 When funds are available for African-American History expenditures in public schools, such funds will be distributed for the purchase of materials from a prepared resource list on a per pupil basis to local school districts or to educational service cooperatives. However, the Arkansas Department of Education may elect to fund pilot programs on a competitive basis, in lieu of per pupil disbursements. 6.02 At least ninety (90) percent of all funding shall be dedicated to the purchase of material and/or required training. 7.00 Training 7.01 Each school district shall send a district trainer for training as a resource for others in the district in the use of instructional materials and in racial and ethnic awareness and sensitivity. 2 7.02 All training for African-American History implementation shall be delivered through the statewide system of education service cooperatives and the three (3) Pulaski County school districts. 7.03 During the required training session, each trainer shall receive training in developing greater awareness of ethic and racial differences, improving interpersonal skills, and enhancing racial harmony. 7.04 All training required by the Black History Task Force for teachers of African-American History shall be concluded by August 1, 1999, if funds are available. 7.05 All materials recommended by the Black History Task Force for teachers of African-American History shall be authorized by August 1, 1999, if funds are available. 3     ADE Memos - Received 9-24-97 Funding Proposals, Grants and Special Projects, ~ ight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Act Proposed Rule and Regulations on Duty to Report Student Criminal Acts School District Annual Report Textbook Selection Use of Technology Resources in Instruction Internet Use by District Owned Computers Results of the Annual School Election, September 16, 1997 Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ,-S, .. ATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4-P.S RAYMOND SIMON, Director SEP 2 t 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-Op Directors NO: SI-98-023 Page: 1 of2 Date: September 18, 1997 Type of Memo: Administrative Response Required By: Optional There are attachments to this memo. (Eleven Page Evaluation Report) Assistant Director, School Improvement \u0026amp; Instructional Support: Frank Anthony Subject: Funding Proposals, Grants and Special Projects Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Act Index Code: DD Regulatory Authority: Title II of Improving America's Schools Act Contact Person: Gayle Potter Phone No: 682-4558 This memo contains the district's 1997-98 allocation for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development program, Title II of the Improving America's Schools Act (!ASA). Also included are forms to report activities and expenditures from 1996-97 and to project professional development initiatives for the new year. This is year three of a three-year project. In Year One each applicant was required to design a three-year professional development plan based on identified needs in the district (cooperative). Unless the needs have significantly changed, this year's activities will continue to be linked to that original plan. The application packet requires applicants to report on activities conducted during 1996-97, complete the expenditure report reflecting both Title II funds and required matching, and project a budget and time line for the 1997-98 project year. Listed are some major program guidelines that must be followed in the administration of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman - WILLIAM B. FISHER, Pn1CMIW  VkcChalnnan - LUKE GORDY, Van Burtn Mtmbtn: EDWIN B. ALDERSON.JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocrn  JoNELLCALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadtlplua JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C'. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR, Tuarkona  SHERRY WALKER, Uttlt Rock  ANITA YATES, BmtonvWt An Equal Oppommlty Employtr ASSURANCES LEAs completing the application assure the SEA that it will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements as they relate to the application. Also applicant assures that: A. Teachers and children in private schools will share equitably in proposed LEA activities and that adequate notice of the opportunity to participate will be provided. B. Programs ofin-service training and retraining will take in account the need for greater access to and participation in mathematics and science programs by students from historically underrepresented groups, minorities, individuals with limited English proficiency, the economically disadvantaged, and the handicapped. C. Funds received under this program will be used to supplement, not supplant, programs in mathematics and science. D. The LEA agrees to keep such records and provide such information to the Department as reasonably may be required for fiscal audit and program evaluation consistent with the responsibilities of the Department under Title II. PROJECT ASSURANCES Identify the person(s) who will be responsible for administration of the proposed activities at the LEA (Cooperative) level. Name: Position: Telephone Number: The signature certifies that the proposed activities will be carried out in keeping with this proposal and the assurances above, and the LEA named on the application has authorized me as its official representative to file this application. Superintendent of Schools/Cooperative Director Date 1997-98 Schedule of Activities List project activities to be conducted during the 1997-98 project year. You must be as specific as possible in that monthly payments will be based on this schedule of activities. Project Activity Title II Funds Matching Month Scheduled (Copy and use additional pages if necessary.) - Materials. Eisenhower Program funds may be used to purchase supplies and materials that are necessary to conduct training activities. This does not include sets of materials for any individual teacher's classroom.  Support for partnerships between schools, consortia of schools or local educational agencies, and institutions of higher education, to support both academic and pedagogical training for current and pre service teachers.  Preparing teachers in the effective use of educational technology as instructional tools for increasing student understanding of mathematics and science.  Professional development to ensure that girls and young women, minorities, limited English proficient students, individuals with disabilities, and the economically disadvantaged have full opportunity to achieve the challenging State content standards.  Providing financial or other incentives for teachers to become certified by nationally recognized professional teacher enhancement programs.  Preparing teachers to work with parents and families on fostering student achievement in mathematics and science. Special Provisions of the Legislation LEA Consortia. Under Section 2204 of the Act, any LEA receiving an Eisenhower Program allocation of less than $10,000 is required to form a consortium with at least one other entity receiving Eisenhower Program funds. Waiver Provision. The State Education Agency may waive the consortium requirement when a local district is able to demonstrate that it can implement an effective program of professional development as required in the Act with limit~ funds. Consideration of a waiver will depend on the overall potential of the project to meet the determined professional development needs within the LEA\nthe remote location of a district making expenses of a cooperative project more costly or outcomes less effective\nor the extent to which project activities are supported by other local, state or federal funds. Local Cost Sharing. Each local educational agency shall provide not less than 33 percent of the cost of the activities proposed under this part, excluding the cost of services to private school teachers. Waiver of Cost Sharing. The State education agency may approve a waiver of the Local Cost Sharing requirement if a local education agency can demonstrate that such agency is unable to meet the 33% match requirement due to economic hardship and that compliance with such requirements would preclude such agency's participation in the program. LEA Focus on School-Level Activities. At least 80% of the funds available to an LEA must be spent on school-level activities as determined by teachers and other staff through the needs assessment. No more than 20% of the funds may be used for district-wide activities including reasonable administrative expenses (generally not to exceed 5% of the total grant amount). Information Sheet Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development Program Authorized Activities: Each local educational district, school, or cooperative that receives funds under this program shall use such funds for activities that give teachers and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet the Student Learning expectations as listed in the Arkansas curriculum Frameworks. Professional Development activities funded under this program shall meet the following criteria:  Be tied to the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks  Take into account recent research on teaching and learning\n Provide professional development which incorporates effective strategies, techniques, methods and practices for meeting the educational needs of diverse groups of students, including girls and women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, limited English proficient individuals, and economically disadvantaged individuals\n Include strong academic content and pedagogical components\nand -  Be of sufficient intensity and duration to have a positive and lasting impact on the teacher's performance in the classroom. Examples of Eligible Activities as described in the Act:  Professional development for teams of teachers, and, where appropriate, administrators, pupil service personnel, or other staff from individual schools, to support teaching consistent with the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks.  Support and time, which in the case of teachers may include released time with pay, for teacher, and, where appropriate, pupil service personnel and other school staff to enable such teachers and staff to participate in mathematics and science subjects that are Offered through professional associations, universities, and other providers.  Activities that provide follow up for teachers who have participated in professional Development activities that are designed to ensure that the knowledge and skills learned by the teacher are implemented in the classroom. 1997 -1998 Budget Information Allocation of Funds Public School Allocation Private School Allocation Carryover from 1996-97 _____ _ Carryover from 1996-97 _____ _ New allocation 1997-98 ------ New allocation 1997-98 ------ (see printout) (see printout) Public School Subtotal Private School Subtotal Required Matching (33% of 97-98 Public School A/location) - Identify the source of matching funds. Note: Funds allocated for project activities must equal the sum of Total Grant Award and Required Match unless a waiver is requested and approved. (1996-97 Program Evaluation) 6. Budget Summary of Public/Private schools. Total grant award amount for public schools for 1996-97 (Includes any carry over from I 995-96) $ ______ _ Provide amount spent in each of the following categories: Reimbursement and/or stipend Consultant fees and expenses Materials and supplies used for conducting training Administrative expenses Other (please specify) Total project expenditures for 1996-97 Amount of 1996-97 Grant Award unspent to be carried forward. $ ----- Total grant award amount for private schools for 1996-97 (Includes any carry over from 1995-96) $ ------- Provide amount spent in each of the following categories: Reimbursement and/or stipend Consultant fees and expenses Materials and supplies used for conducting training Other (please specify) Total project expenditures for 1996-97 Amount of 1996-97 Grant Award unspent to be carried forward. $ ____ _ 7. Matching Funds/In-Kind Support for Professional Development Activities a. Local district or State funds used to match Title II expenditures $ ------ b. Other Federal funds used to match Title II expenditures $ ------ Source _______________ _ c. In-Kind contributions used to match Title II. $ ------ d. Total $ ------ (1996-97 Program Evaluation) 3. List the total number of participants in each of the following categories: (non duplicate count) A. Teachers B. Preservice teachers C. Administrators/Supervisors D. Other school staff Total 4. List the number of participants who were: A. Male B. Female 5. List the number of participants who were: A. White, non-Hispanic B. Black, non-Hispanic C. Hispanic D. Asian, Pacific Islander E. American Indian/ Alaskan Native 2. (1996-97 Program Evaluation) Private School Information Number of Participants Number of Participants Number of for Mathematics for Science Hours Trained Activity Elem. MIS Sec. Elem. MIS Sec. 1. (1996-97 Program Evaluation)  Public School Information (List each activity conducted during Number of Participants Number of Participants Number of the 96-97 project year.) for Mathematics for Science Hours Trained Activity Elem. MIS Sec. Elem. MIS Sec. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Improving America's Schools Act School District or Cooperative: Address: City: County: EVALUATION REPORT 1996-97 School Year Zip: Telephone: Please return completed application on or before November 3, 1997 to: Dr. Gayle Potter Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, 106-A Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 . .. Other Subject Areas. The IASA provides for subject areas other than mathematics and science to be included in the program. The extent to which funds may be directed to activities involving teachers other than mathematics and science teachers is dependent on the level of funding at the national level. For the 1997-98 year, 22. 7 percent of the funds may be directed to professional development in subject areas other than mathematics and science activities. Consortium. \"Any local education agency that receives an allocation of less than $10,000 under this Title shall, ... form a consortium with at least one other local agency or institution receiving assistance under the act.\" Refer to the Information Sheet for conditions and procedures under which this agreement may be waived. Cost Sharini, Each local educational agency is required to provide not less than 33 percent of the cost of activities proposed under this Title, excluding the cost of services to private school teachers. Refer to the Information Sheet for conditions and procedures under which this requirement may be waived. Allocation and Distribution of Funds Allocations are based on two factors: 50 percent is distributed based on the total enrollment from public and participating private schools (where applicable), and fifty percent is distributed in the same proportion as funds received under Part A of Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act. Funds must be distributed based on the schedule of activities. It is imperative that the proposal identify, to the extent possible, activities that will be conducted during the year and that a cost be projected for each activity. The schedule of payments will be based on monthly needs to fund those activities. Current grant awards extend through September 30, 1997. Any expenditure of funds after that date must be by extension of the grant award or carried over into the new project. Once the plan has been reviewed and approved, the effective date of the new grant award will be the date that the new Schedule of Activities and Evaluation of the 1996-97 project were received by the Department of Education. Applications should be received on or before November 3, 1997. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ATE C' APITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. AR KANSAS 72201- l 07 l  (501) 682 -~-n\nRAYMOND SIMON, Director NO: ACC-98-024 Page: 1 of 1 SEP 2 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Date: September 18, 1997 Forward Copies To: Superintendents, Co-op Directors *Other Interested Parties Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: None There is an attachment to this memo. Assistant Director, Accountability: Frank Anthony Subject: Proposed Rule and Regulations on Duty to Report Student Criminal Acts - Regulatory Authority: Act 1243 of 1997 Index Code: nH Contact Person: Theresa W. Dixon Phone No: (501) 682-4227 The Arkansas Department of Education will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule and regulation on Duty to Report and Investigate Student Criminal Acts. The hearing will be held October 6, 1997, at 2:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of the Arch Ford Education Building in Little Rock, Arkansas. A copy of the proposed rule and regulation is attached. Written comments regarding the proposed rule and regulation will be accepted until October 27, 1997. Comments should be addressed to: Theresa Dixon Staff Attorney Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 * Will be mailed by Attorney's Office STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Oudnnan . WILLIAM B. FISHER, Pancoalcl  Vice Ownnan . LUKE GORDY, Van Buren Memben: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocen  JoNELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXOI',, Ari\u0026lt;adelphia  ,JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C'. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR .. Tnarbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rock  ANITA YATES. BaatonvWe An Equal Opportunity Employer ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS ON DUTY TO REPORT STUDENT CRIMINAL ACTS 1.00 Regulatory Authority 1.01 These regulations shall be known as Arkansas Department of Education regulations governing the duty of school personnel to report student criminal acts. 1.02 The State Board of Education enacted these regulations pursuant to its authority under Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-113, as amended by Act 1243 of 1997. 2.00 Purpose of Regulations 2.01 The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidelines under which schools will report felony incidents or other crimes involving acts of violence against a teacher, school employee or student to law enforcement authorities. - 3.00 Definitions 3.01 \"Felony\" means a crime of a more serious nature than those designated as misdemeanors, as defined by Arkansas statutes. ~ Ark. Code Ann. 5-1-106 which classifies felony crimes. (A) Examples of a felony involving violence include, but are not limited to: Murder in the first degree, A. C. A. 5-10-102 Murder in the second degree, A. C. A. 5-10-103 Kidnaping, A. C. A. 5-11-102 Aggravated robbery, A. C. A 5-12-103 Rape, A. C. A. 5-14-103 Sexual abuse in the first degree, A. C. A. 5-13-201 Violation of a minor in the first degree, A. C. A. 5-14-120 Battery in the first degree, A. C. A  5-13-201 Terroristic act, A. C. A. 5-13-310 Unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, A. C. A. 5-7 4-107 3.02 \"Other crime involving an act of violence\" means the equivalent of \"crime of violence\" as defined by Ark. Code Ann. 5-74-103 (c) and 5-74-202 (c): 'any violation of Arkansas laws where a person purposely or knowingly causes, or threatens to cause, death or physical injury to another person or persons.' 3.03 \"Reasonable belief' means the belief that an ordinary, prudent person would form under the circumstances in question and are not recklessly or negligently formed . See Ark. Code Ann. 5-1-102(18). 3.04 Student \"enrolled\" means a student who is registered to attend the school. 3.05 \"Law enforcement officer'! means any public servant vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for offenses. See Ark. Code Ann. 5-1-102(12). 4.00 School Reporting Responsibility 4.01 The principal or designee who has direct knowledge or who has received information leading to a reasonable belief that a student enrolled in the public school has committed a felony on school property or while under school supervision/authority shall report the incident to the superintendent. 4.02 The principal or designee who has direct knowledge or who has received information leading to a reasonable belief that a student enrolled in the public school has committed a crime involving an act of violence against a teacher, a school employee, or a student shall report the incident to the superintendent. 4.03 The superintendent or designee shall report the incident to the appropriate local law enforcement agency. 5.00 Guidelines for School Reporting 5.01 If a principal or designee has reason to believe that an incident has occurred that satisfies the provisions of these rules and regulations, the incident must be reported to the superintendent. 5.02 The age of the student or other mitigating factors should not be considered when deciding whether to report the incident. 5.03 Possible defenses to criminal acts should not be considered when deciding whether to report the incident. (Example: self-defense). 5.04 An attempt should not be made to distinguish between degrees of involvement when several students are involved. All students who may have participated in or planned an incident should be reported. 5.05 An attempt should not be made to distinguish between attempt and a complete crime. A student who has taken substantial steps toward committing a crime as described herein may have committed a felony and should be reported. 5.06 Incidents that should be reported include, but are not limited to: (A) Crimes against persons when the result of student conduct is believed to be: Death (capital murder, first degree murder, manslaughter)\nDeprivation of liberty of another (kidnaping, first degree false imprisonment)\nPhysical injury to another (first and second degree battery)\nOthers were put at risk of death or serious physical injury (aggravated assault). (B) Crimes against property when it is believed that: Property was taken by deception or theft, and value is over $200\nProperty was taken by threat or by force\nThe property taken was a credit card\nA fire was started\nA student remained in school building to commit a crime\nA student broke into school building to commit a crime\nA student broke into building, structure, vehicle or object containing money or products. (C) Sex offenses if sexual contact is believed to be have occurred: By force\nVictim was under age 14\nVictim was unable to consent because of mental defect or mental incapacity or because he or she is physically helpless. (D) Drug offenses if a student is believed to possess: Drugs or controlled substances\nDrug paraphernalia. (E) Weapon offenses if a student is believed to possess: A bomb\nAny firearm\nMetal knuckles or similar device. 6.00 Failure to Report 6.01 The statute carries a Class C misdemeanor penalty for any person who fails to report, as required by the statute. Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201. 1071  (501) 682-4-P.\u0026gt; RAYMOND SIMON, Director SEP 2 1997 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MOfUTORING FORWARD COPIES TO: X SUPERINTENDENTS, X CO-OP DIRECTORS TYPE: No: SI - 98 - 024 Date: September 18, 1997 Page: 1 of 1 RESPONSE REQUIRED BY: X REGULATORY ATTACHMENTS All ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/SECTION: Frank Anthony, School Improvement\u0026amp; Instructional Support SUBJECT: School District Annual Report INDEX CODE: CM - REGULATORY AUTHORITY: N/A CONTACT PERSON: Oliver Dillingham PHONE NO: 682-4213 Equity Assistance Center The purpose of the Annual Equity Compliance Report is to assure that each local school district is in compliance with Standard I, 1993 Revised Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools, which states: All school districts' policies and actions shall be nondiscriminatory and shall be in compliance with state and federal laws. State Code Annotated 6-10-111 (1987) Section 3, requires each district to annually report to the Arkansas Department of Education, Equity Assistance Center, regarding its compliance with civil rights responsibilities. Federal laws (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) have specific requirements of public schools as recipients of federal funds . The attached 1997 Annual Equity Compliance Report should be completed and returned to the Equity Assistance Center by Wednesday, October 15, 1997 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Clwnaan -WILLIAM H. FISHER, PancoaY  VluC'halnnan - LUKE GORDY, Van Burrn MemMn: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rocen  JoNELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia , JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD r. SMITH, JR., McGehtt  LEWIS THOMPSON, JR., Tnarbna  SHERRY WALKER, Uttk Rock  ANITA YATES, Badoavllk An Equal Opportunity Employrr ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ANNUAL EQUITY COMPLIANCE REPORT 1997-1998 District ________________ County __________ _ Education Cooperative ________________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator ___________________ _ Coordinator's Positionffitle. ______________________ _ Address ___________________________ _ Telephone _____________ Fa~------------- PLEASE RESPOND RELATIVE TO THE DISTRICT'S STATUS 1. Is there a district Equity Self-Evaluation process used annually to determine if the district is in compliance with Standard I, Civil Right Laws of 1964, Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504? _ Yes _ No 2. Is the district's non-discrimination policy posted throughout the district's facilities and included in all handbooks, application forms and recruitment materials? _Yes __No 3. Are strategies to alleviate inequities and comply with state and federal regulations included in each school's improvement plan? _ Yes __No The signatures below certify that the district is in compliance with state and federal civil rights regulations and with Standard I for Accreditation of Arkansas public schools. Superintendent's Name: ________________________ _ Signatures/Dates: __________________________ _ Superintendent Date Board President Date Board Secretary Date SECTION 504: DISABILITY Identify the designated Section 504 Coordinator (34C.F.R. 104.7) District County _________ _ Education Cooperative _______________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator _____________________ _ Coordinator's Positionffitle _____________________ _ Address __________________________ _ Telephone. ______________ Fa ____________ _ Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991, state: \"no otherwise qualified handicapped individuals ... shall, solely by reason of their handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. \" 1. Has the district designated at least one person to coordinate efforts to comply with Section 504? __ Yes __ No 2. Does the district have grievance procedures that incorporate due process standards and provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any prohibited action? __ Yes __ No 3. Does the district provide appropriate provisions for children that have been identified with disabling conditions under 504 to ensure equal educational opportunities? __ Yes __ No 4. Has the district taken appropriate steps to notify students, parents and the general public of its duty to assure equitable access to educational programs? __ Yes __ No 5. Are there district procedures to locate and identify students with disabilities who do not qualify for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? __ Yes __ No TITLE IX: GENDER EQUITY Identify the designated Gender Equity Coordinator {34C.F.R.106.8)* District ___________ ____ _ County ___________ _ Education Cooperative ________________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator _____________________ _ Coordinator's Position/fitle ______________________ _ Address ___________________________ _ Telephone. ______________ Fa,._ ____________ _ Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states: \"No person. .. shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal Financial Assistance. \" The Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities receiving federal assistance . Please indicate the district's status relative to the following requirements of Tide IX of the Education Amendments Acts of 197 4, Tide VI and Tide VIl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 1. Does the district have a specific policy against harassment and a written code of conduct that publicizes it? __ Yes _No 2. Does the district's policy contain the minimum elements of a definition and prescribe methods of notifying people? __ Yes ____No 3. Are there references to harassment in the district's student handbook and the employee's handbook? __ Yes ____No 4. Does the district have a grievance procedure to handle complaints about harassment and to monitor its effectiveness? __ Yes ___ No 5. Has information about the grievance procedure been distributed to students and employees? _ Yes _No TITLE VI: RACE Identify the individual designated to respond to race equity issues. District ________________ County __________ _ Education Cooperative ________________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator ____________________ _ Coordinator's Position/fitle _____________________ _ Address ____________________________ _ Telepbone _____________ Fa ____________ _ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states: \"No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color or nation origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. \" 1. Does the district have board adopted grievance procedures that encourage local resolution of problems rather than resorting to the formal civil rights complaint procedure? __ Yes _No 2. Does the district distribute its grievance procedures and policy of nondiscrimination to the students, parents and general public annually? __ Yes _No 3. Is there a district policy and procedure that ensure that no student is denied equitable access to instructional services, transportation, student activities, facilities, honor and awards learning materials, guidance and counseling, and curriculum and instruction? __ Yes __ No 4. Does the district utilize a variety of methods to encourage all identifiable groups of parents to become involved in school functions? __ Yes __ No 5. Are the district's policies of nondiscrimination posted in all facilities and disseminated prior to the beginning of each school year to students, parents, employees and the general public? __ Yes ____No .. TITLE VI: NATIONAL ORIGIN Identify your district's English as a Second Language (ESL) Coordinator. District _ ______________ County _________ _ Education Cooperative ________________________ _ District's Equity Coordinator ___________________ _ Coordinator's Positionffitle. ______________________ _ Address ___________________________ _ Telephone. _______________ Fax. _____________ _ Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C Sec. 200d et seqJ requires that: \"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. \" In addition, insofar as national origin regulations are applied to those students who are limited in their english proficiency, the May 25 Menwrandum from DHEW requirements state that: \"Where the inability to speak and understand the English language excludes national origin minority group children from effective participation in the educational program offered by a school district, the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students. \" Indicate your response to the following statements: 1. Does the district have, in place, a process that ensures that national origin students are provided opportunity for full participation in the full life of the school, including all academic services, counseling, extracurricular student activities, and placement in gifted and talented programs, advanced placement and honors courses? __ Yes __ No 2. Has the district identified language minority students, assessed their level of English proficiency, and provided all Limited English Proficient (LEP) students with an educational program that develops English skills and provides for appropriate, understandable content and subject matter instruction? __ Yes __ No 3. Does the district ensure that staff training, curriculum materials, and evaluation procedures are appropriate for LEP students? __ Yes _ No 4. Does the district ensure that LEP students are not mis-assigned to special education classes due to their inability to speak and understand English. __ Yes __ No 5. Does the district ensure that parents who are not proficient in English are provided with appropriate, understandable, and sufficient information about all school activities? __ Yes __ No 6. Does the district takes steps to modify a program for LEP students when that program is noteffective? __ Yes __ No Arkansas DIRECTOR'S COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4.n..\n, RAYMOND SIMON, Director SEP 2 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Forward Copies To: Superintendents Co-op Directors Secondary Principals Middle/Jr High Principals Elementary Principals NO: IA-98-009 Page: 1 of 1 Date: September 18, 1997 Type of Memo: Informational Response Required By: Those Affected Attachments: None Assistant Director, Internal Administration: Dr. Bobbie Davis Subject: Textbook Selection Index Code: IJJ Regulatory Authority: Arkansas Code Annotated 6-21-401-413 (Rep!. 1993) Contact Person: Sue McKenzie Phone No: 682-4593 The State Recommended List of Textbooks and other Instructional Materials for Language arts, grades kindergarten through eight and the Textbook Caravan Itinerary normally sent to districts in September will be sent following the state Board Meeting in October. The anticipated dates for the textbook caravan, this year are November 3 through December 15, 1997. The dates for filling reports of adoption will be adjusted accordingly. Beginning the textbook caravan later will allow full attention to be given to the state standardized testing to take place in late September and early October. The accompanying attachments provide information to update the present State Recommended List of Textbooks and other Instructional Materials. The information covers substitution of new materials made by publishers, price reductions and some ISBN number corrections. A listing of the latest off list materials on state contracts is also included. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman . WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould  Vice Chairman  LUKE GORDY, Van Buren Members: EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., El Dorado  CARLE. BAGGETT, Rogers  JoN ELL CALDWELL, Bryant  MARTHA DIXON, Arkadelphia  JAMES McLARTY Ill, Newport  BETTY PICKETT, Conway  RICHARD C. SMITH, .JR., McGehee  LEWIS THOMPSON, ,JR, Texarkana  SHERRY WALKER, Little Rock  ANITA YATES, Bentonville An Equal Opportunity Employer ADDENDUM Please Make the following changes in your Textbooks /Instructional Grades 7-12 (Gray Binder) Glencoe/McGraw-Hill Social Studies: Government and Civics American Government: Principles and Practices Page 20, ISBN Number change Incorrect ISBN 0-02-823919-0 Page 21 Substitution, Old Title Section Quizzes Cpyt. Ed. 1996 4 0-02823836-2, Student Text, Copyright 1996, 2nd edition New 0-02821913-9, Student Text, Copyright 1998, 3rd edition ISBN Correction - 0-0283847-8, Chapter and Unit Tests, 1998, 3rd edition Mosby Publishers Science: Applied Science Page 0-81518805-6 understanding the Human Body, 1994 Correct ISBN 0-02823919-9 1998 3 (Glencoe/McGraw-Hill now distributes this title, Educator's Book Depository Supplemental Health, Page 7 Scott Foresman ISBN correction Incorrect number 0-67359824-8 Student Text, Soft bound Social Studies, Page 55 Rand McNally Number correction Incorrect number Correct number 0-67329824-8 528-17715 Atlas of American History transparencies,set of 14 Correct Number TRP-17715-5 Social Studies, Page 10 Prentice Hall The American Nation: Beginnings to 1877 0-13-427048-7 American heritage Single User Version CD-ROM/Win 0-13-427121-1 American heritage Single User Version CD-ROM/Mac 9-13-432311-4 Guided Reading Audiotapes, English America: Pathways Page 13 0-13-831124-2 Guided Reading Audiotapes, English Version World Georgraphy, Page 36 Prentice Hall 0-13-828013-4 Guided Reading Audiotapes English Version World Georgraphy, Page 34 Macmillan/McGraw-Hill 0-02-14 73339-0 World Regions, Pupil Edition Glencoe/McGraw-Hill . Teen Health Course 1 and 2 0-02-651774-4 Student Text 0-02-651792-2 Conruct Resolution 0-02-651796-5 Building Life Management Skllls 0-02-651794-9 Personal and Social Development 0-02-65177~5 Concept Mapping Activities 0-02-651783-3 Enrichment Activlttes 0-02-651782-5 Decision-Making Activities 0-02-651781-7 Health Labs 0-02-651784-1 Cross-Curriculum Acttvlties 0-02-651785-X Performance Assessment 0-02-651786-8 Test Program 0-02-651798-1 Cooperative Leaming Activity Cards Package 0-02-651802-3 Poster Package 0-02-6527 46-4 Deallng with Sensitive Issues 0-02-6527 44-8 Cultural Diversity In the Health Classroom 0-02-651512 1 Death and the Adolescent 0-02-651788-4 Parent Letters and Acttvlties (Engllsh/Spanlsh) 0-02-651803-1 Engllsh Audlocassette Package 0-02-651804-X Spanish Audlocassette Package 2 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 New Price 49.97 49.97 45.47 45.47 45.47 39.78 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 24.99 6.99 6.99 6.99 18.99 16.98 12.99 12.99 12.99 14.97 18.99 25.98 18.99 13.99 12.99 14.54 - 12.99 75.00 75.00 - 0-02-.652766-9 Spanish Summaries, Quizzes \u0026amp; AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 19.98 0-02-6527 48-0 Teen Health Course 1 Video Kit 1996 1 6-8 299.99 0-02-651813-9 Testmaker, Apple 1996 1 6-8 72.00 0-02-651814-7 Testmaker, IBM 1996 1 6-8 72.00 0-02-651815-5 Testmaker, MacIntosh 1996 1 6-8 72.00 0-02-651816-3 Videodisc Program (Engllsh/Spanlsh) 1996 1 6-8 195.00 0-02-651823-6 VHS Program (Engllsh/Spanlsh) 1996 1 6-8 99.99 0-02-651799-X Teaching Transparencies Binder 1996 1 6-8 120.62 0-02-651801-5 Teaching Strategies and AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 15.12 Teen Health, Course 2 0-02-652566-6 Student Text 1996 1 6-8 32.97 0-02-652712-X Developing Responsible RelaUonshlps 1996 1 6-8 6.99 0-02-652590-9 Violence PrevenUon 1996 1 6-8 6.99 0-02-652588-7 Alcohol. Drugs, and Tobacco EducaUon 1996 1 6-8 6.99 0-02-652710-3 HIV/AIDS 1996 1 6-8 6.99 0--02-652573-9 Concept Mapping AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 22.98 0-02-652577-1 Enrichment AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 19.98 0-02-652576-3 Decision-Making AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 14.97 0-02-652575-5 Health Labs 1996 1 6-8 14.97 0-02-652578-X Cross-Curriculum AcUvlUes 1996 1 6-8 14.97 0-02-652581-X Performance Assessment 1996 1 6-8 18.99 0-02-652579-5 TesUng Program 1996 1 6-8 22.98 0-02-653122-4 CooperaUve Leaming acUvlty Cards Packa\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\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\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":434,"next_page":435,"prev_page":433,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":5196,"total_count":81191,"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":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"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":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"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":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"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":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"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":1909},{"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":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"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":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"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":2740},{"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":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"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":197},{"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":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"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":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}