Attorneys for two former Little Rock School Board members and some families in the school system asked a federal judge Monday to reconsider his Sept. 28 decision dismissing racial-bias claims against state education leaders.
"The Court's Order does not address all of the facts or the full weight of the facts," the motion submitted Monday to U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall said.
In particular, the judge's decision does not sufficiently address the financial impact of 3,000 additional state-approved charter school seats within the Little Rock district boundaries, the motion filed by a team of attorneys led by state Rep. John Walker, D-Little Rock, states.
The attorneys noted that the Little Rock School District submitted a report to the judge last week in which the district's ability to pay for a new high school in southwest Little Rock was said to be in question.
"It is apparent from the text of the report that these funding problems exist without reference to the LRSD's loss of huge sums of money if the 3,000 new charter seats come to exist," the attorneys wrote in asking for an opportunity to submit more information to the judge on the charter-school issues.
Marshall is the presiding judge in the lawsuit that was filed last year by the Walker team against Arkansas Education Commissioner Johnny Key, the Arkansas Board of Education and then-Little Rock Superintendent Baker Kurrus.
The suit challenged the January 2015 state takeover of the Little Rock district, the dismissal of Little Rock's elected School Board and the expansion of publicly funded charter schools in the district.
The lawsuit also alleged disparate treatment of students and inequitable conditions of the school buildings in the district. Those claims have not been dismissed by the judge and will be the subject of a federal court trial next July.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Jim Ross and Joy Springer, who were among the seven School Board members removed after the state took control of the district because six of the district's 48 schools were rated by the state as academically distressed.
That was the result of low student achievement on state math and literacy tests over a three-year period. Other plaintiffs are a group of black students and their families, most of whom are not identified by their real names but by the last name of Doe.
"The reconsideration of these claims regarding control of policy making in the LRSD and freedom of expression is in the interests of justice," the attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote. "The action of the State Board set aside the will of the voters by a one-vote margin.
"The LRSD now faces sensitive issues such as cutting the budget, possible school closing and funding facilities work. The voters' chosen representatives should be part of this work. The special role of the freedom of speech in this nation has long been recognized. These are claims on which it is imperative to 'travel the last mile.'"
Metro on 10/18/2016