Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cty. Spec. Sch.

Citation237 F.Supp.2d 988
Decision Date13 September 2002
Docket NumberNo. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR.,4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR.
PartiesLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. Defendants Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. Intervenors Katherine Knight, et al. Intervenors
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

Christopher J. Heller, John Clayburn Fendley, Jr., Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, AR, for Little Rock School Dist.

James M. Llewellyn, Jr., William P. Thompson, Thompson & Llewellyn, PA., Fort Smith, AR, for Blytheville School Dist., Bryant School Dist., Fort Smith School Dist., West Memphis School Dist., Altus-Denning School Dist., Ashdown School Dist., Barton-Lexa School Dist., Batesville School Dist., Biggers-Reyno School Dist., Black Rock School Dist., Bright Star School Dist., Brinkley School Dist., Centerpoint School Dist., Clarendon School Dist., Cotton Plant School Dist., Cutter Morning Star School Dist., Dewitt School Dist., Dollarway School Dist., Foreman School Dist., Fountain Lake School Dist., Gillett School Dist., Glen Rose School Dist., Guy-Perkins School Dist., Hoxie School Dist., Jonesboro School Dist., Kirby School Dist., Lavaca School Dist., Lewisville School Dist., Magazine School Dist., Malvern School Dist., Mammoth Spring School Dist., Manila School Dist., Maynard School Dist., Oden School Dist., Ozark School Dist., Plainview-Rover School Dist., Pocahontas School Dist., Prairie Grove School Dist., South Conway School Dist., Spring Hill School Dist., Stamps School Dist., Stephens School Dist., Turrell School Dist., Van Buren School Dist., Warren School Dist., Watson Chapel School Dist., West Fork School Dist., White Hall School Dist., Winslow School Dist., Wonderview School Dist., Yellville-Summit School Dist., Alma School Dist., Alread School Dist., Beebe School Dist., Bentonville School Dist., Bergman School Dist., Berryville School Dist., Blevins School Dist., Booneville School Dist., Bradford School Dist., Buffalo Island School Dist., Caddo Hills School Dist., Carthage School Dist., Charleston School Dist., Corning School Dist., County Line Public School, Crossett School Dist., Decatur School Dist., Dermott School Dist., Dumas School Dist., Elaine School Dist., Fordyce School Dist., Gosnell School Dist., Grady School Dist., Greeb County Technical Schools, Green Forest School Dist Greenland School Dist., Greenwood School Dist., Harrisburg School Dist., Hamburg School Dist., Holly Grove School Dist., Huttig School Dist., Jackson County School Dist., Junction City School Dist., Lakeside School Dist., Lead Hill School Dist., Leslie School Dist., Marion School Dist., Marshall School Dist., Mayflower School Dist., McGehee School Dist., Mountainburg School Dist., Nettleton School Dist., Newport School Dist., Ola School Dist., Paragould School Dist., Parkin School Dist., Pleasant View School Dist., Quitman School Dist., Rural Special School Dist., Saratoga School Dist., Searcy School Dist., Smackover School Dist., Southside School Dist. #2 Bee Branch, Strong School Dist., Stuttgart School Dist., Valley Springs School Dist., Waldron School Dist., Weiner School Dist., Wickes School Dist., Wynne School Dist., Northeast Arkansas School Dist.

Richard W. Roachell, Roachell Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for North Little Rock Classroom Teachers Ass'n, Pulaski Ass'n of Classroom Teachers, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Ass'n, Ed Bullington, John Harrison, Milton Jackson, Katherine Knight, Pulaski Ass'n of Support Staff.

John W. Walker, John W. Walker, P.A., Little Rock, AR, for Alexa Armstrong, Karlos Armstrong, Khayyam Davis, Alvin Hudson, Tatia Hudson, Alvin Hudson, Tatia Hudson, Sara Matthews, Derrick Miles, Janice Miles, John M. Miles, NAACP, Brian Taylor, Hilton Taylor, Parsha Taylor, Robert Willingham, Tonya Willingham, Donna Stone, Dennis Stone, Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Gwen Hevey Jackson, Diane Davis, Raymond Frazier, Pulaski County Bd. of Educ., Cecil Bailey, Thomas Broughton, Martin Zoldessy.

John W. Walker, Norman J. Chachkin, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., New York, NY, for Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua.

Stephen W. Jones, Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., Little Rock, AR, for North Little Rock School Dist.

M. Samuel Jones, III, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, AR, for Pulaski County Special School Dist.

Sharon Carden Streett, Streett Law Offices, Little Rock, AR, for State of Ark.

Colette Dodson, Dennis R. Hansen, Arkansas Atty. General's Office, Little Rock, AR, Mark Arnold Hagemeier, Arkansas Municipal League, North Little Rock, AR, for Arkansas Dept. of Educ.

Office of Desegregation Monitor, Little Rock, AR, for Office of Desegregation Monitor.

Christopher J. Heller, Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Little Rock, AR, for Patricia Gee, George Cannon, Katherine Mitchell, W.D. Hamilton.

WILSON, District Judge.

INDEX
                                                                                               Page
                  I. Introduction ..............................................................992
                II. The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation In Pulaski County ............997
                     A. 1956 Through 1973 ......................................................997
                     B. Events leading to the initiation of this action ........................999
                     C. Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief .....................1000
                     D. The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans ....................1003
                
                     E. LRSD's Implementation Of Its Desegregation Obligations Between 1991
                          And 1995 ............................................................1005
                     F. Joshua's Request For An Interim Award Of Attorney's Fees For
                          Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement ..........1010
                     G. LRSD's First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction ................1012
                     H. The Perplexing Final Resolution Of Joshua's Request For Still More
                          Attorneys' Fees From LRSD ...........................................1013
                     I. Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan ............1017
                     J. LRSD's Implementation Of Its Obligations Under The Revised Plan .......1018
                     K. LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance
                          With The Revised Plan ...............................................1020
                III. Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan ......................................1021
                     A. LRSD's Obligation Of Good Faith .......................................1023
                     B. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Student Discipline .......................1023
                     C. LRSD's Obligations To Improve And Remediate The Academic Achievement
                          Of African-American Students ........................................1023
                     D. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced
                          Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors ..........................1023
                     E. LRSD's Obligations To Develop Remedies, Where Appropriate, For
                          Racial Disparities In Programs And Activities .......................1024
                     F. Procedure For Raising Compliance Issues ...............................1024
                     G. Duration Of Revised Plan ..............................................1025
                     H. Procedure For Seeking Unitary Status ..................................1025
                     I. Effect Of LRSD's Failure To Meet "Specific Goals" In The Revised
                          Plan ................................................................1025
                IV. Controlling Principles Of Law .............................................1026
                     A. The Evolving Concept of Unitary Status ................................1026
                     B. Applicable Standard For Determining If LRSD Is Unitary ................1031
                     C. Burden Of Proof .......................................................1033
                     D. Meaning Of "Substantial Compliance" ...................................1035
                     E. The Metaphysics Of Using The "Achievement Gap" As A Factor In
                          Deciding Unitary Status .............................................1036
                  V. Findings Of Fact .........................................................1040
                     A. Good Faith ............................................................1041
                     B. Student Discipline ....................................................1046
                     C. Extracurricular Activities ............................................1057
                     D. Advanced Placement Courses ............................................1061
                          Promote Participation and Remove Barriers ...........................1062
                          Identify and Encourage ..............................................1066
                          Assist ..............................................................1068
                     E. Guidance And Counseling ...............................................1069
                     F. Academic Achievement ..................................................1070
                     G. Program Assessment/Program Evaluation .................................1076
                 VI. Conclusions Of Law .......................................................1082
                     A. Unitary Status ........................................................1082
                     B. Burden Of Proof .......................................................1082
                     C. Substantial Compliance ................................................1082
                     D. Good Faith ............................................................1082
                     E. Student Discipline ....................................................1082
                     F. Academic Achievement ..................................................1082
                     G. Partial Unitary Status ................................................1083
                     H. Time To Fly ...........................................................1084
                VII. Compliance Remedy ........................................................1087
                
                VIII. Conclusion ..............................................................1088
                
MEMORANDUM...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Healey v. Spencer
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 26, 2014
    ...Commitments adopted by the Board and relied on by the Court in reaching its decision today.”); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist., 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1089 (E.D.Ark.2002) (“As a final caveat, I want to caution the Board that it must be careful in how it uses its newly......
  • Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Arkansas, s. 11–2130
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 21, 2012
    ...of a previous finding that “socioeconomic factors are the root cause for most, if not all, of the achievement gap.” See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F.Supp.2d at 1074. Regardless of whether the specific intervention programs required by Plan 2000 eventually bear fruit, however, PCSSD cannot ......
  • Little Rock School v. North Little Rock, 04-2923.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • June 26, 2006
    ...unitary status, finding that it had complied with all but section 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1089 (E.D.Ark.2002). Section 2.7.1 provided LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.......
  • Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. N. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 4:82-cv-866-DPM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • January 17, 2013
    ...every area except determining the effectiveness of programs aimed at improving black students' academic achievement. LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988 (E.D. Ark. 2002), aff'd sub.nom., LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004); LRSD v. PCSSD, 2007 WL 624054 (E.D. Ark. 2007), aff'd su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT