{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_137","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","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":["2002-11","2002-12"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"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/137"],"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\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 2 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General ALtt:L DENNIS R. HANSEN, # 97225 Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2081 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on November 26, 2002, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 :~li.l ~eE~llff~~~~~:ii~~~,::~a-~~~~,~cql~~~lfi~ 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. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August- June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 FBYas,,~~d~~R::::it:~ti~e~ i1n~f.8}\\@!g\na~ifJ.\":3fqfif'.faigV\n'a~ila6I.'i'. t '\"\"''A ilti\ne.c atd.ti,la f~l\nf\na:t,, d c.k .i ~..:f,3 , f ~ tot fhc c .c\n, , E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, _2002 It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 c~1$imtedJqf e\ny OZJQ:$. $(ibf~'\\9pet@ti.c~ l4,!mi~bt~1 I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In September 2001, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01/02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In September 2002, General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 01/02 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. ritll~i:w!t~r-~~*i11.~,~~1i1r,1,,~1!wjit1:fiJ.1Fll 'ijfi(Ji.iUi~K0~ 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD-14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD- 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD- 2\nPCSSD- 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. 0 . Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. In June 2002, a bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include five 47 passenger buses for $42,155.00 each, ten 65 passenger buses for $43,850.00 each, and one 47 passenger bus with a wheelchair lift for $46,952.00. The total amount was $696,227. In August of 2002, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $696,227. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. S. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 02/03. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) Distribution in July 2002 for FY 02/03 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 02/03. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the  Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 14 II. MONITORING COM PENSA TORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from October 10. It will take place on October 29, 2002 in room 201-A at 1:30 p.m. at the ADE. 17 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 23 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Ongoing Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that . are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary: The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. 34 VI. REM ED IA TION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and on site visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 36 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School .Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e. , Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start'' Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 4 2 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 4 3 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled 'Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd -ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31, 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001. Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 1 O and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001 . The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 51 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The NLRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, cosponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACTAAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on \"Best Practices in Social Studies\". It was presented to the 4th grade teachers in the Little Rock School District. The workshop focused around the five themes of geography and the social studies (fourth grade) framework/standards. Several Internet web sites were shared with the teachers, and the teachers were shown methods for incorporating writing into fourth grade social studies. One of the topics was using primary source photos and technology to stimulate the students to write about diverse regions. A theme of the workshop included identifying web sites which apply to fourth grade social studies teachers and interactive web sites for fourth grade students. This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. On August 13 Steven Weber conducted a workshop at Parkview High School in the LRSD. Topics of the workshop included: 1. Incorporating Writing in the Social Studies Classroom 2. Document Based (open-ended) Questioning Techniques 3. How to practice writing on a weekly basis without assigning a lengthy research report 4. Developing Higher Level Thinking Skills in order to produce active citizens, rather than passive, uninformed citizens 5. Using the Social Studies Framework 6. Identifying state and national Web Sites which contain Primary Sources for use in the classroom The 8:30 - 11 :30 session was for the 6 - 8 grade social studies teachers. The 12:30 - 3:00 session was for the 9 - 12 grade social studies teachers. Several handouts were used, also PowerPoint, primary source photos and documents, and Internet web sites (i.e., Library of Congress, Butler Center for Arkansas Studies, National Archives, etc.). This was a Back-to-School In-service workshop. The teachers were actively involved in the workshop. Marie McNeal is the Social Studies Specialist for the Little Rock School District. She invited Steven Weber to present at the workshop, and was in attendance. 54 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) 55 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 56 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SA T-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 57 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 58 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 59 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 61 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a DHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 62 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of November 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Apri\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1753","title":"District Court, motion and denial for extension of time to file notice of appeal, Joshua intervenors' supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site, other motions and PCSSD's response to motions by Joshua intervenors.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-11"],"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--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School districts","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Middle schools","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, motion and denial for extension of time to file notice of appeal, Joshua intervenors' supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site, other motions and PCSSD's response to motions by Joshua intervenors."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1753"],"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":["27 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\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\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal; District Court, order denying motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal; District Court, amended order denying motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to PCSSD's motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response and objection to Joshua intervenors' supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for recusal of district judge and for vacating of orders, rulings, and judgments; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for the vacating of orders and recusal; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for the vacating of orders and recusal; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for the vacating of orders and recusal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    flE~1:IVED NOV - 4 2002 - OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV O 1 2002 ~/ ~~E~~~,I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Yesterday, Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Middle School Site. The motion reports that PCSSD's counsel does not object to the requested extension. Joshua's request is GRANTED. They have up to and including November 19, 2002, in which to file a response to PCSSD's motion. IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of November, 2002. Wm.R. Wi UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WIT~ ~Uj.E 58 AND/OR79~~ ON / 11 lj:, \"h BY__,,,.,,..~-- 3699 t= u.f t~,.e:o EASTERN Dts~,21 COURT n:.,., T ,\u0026lt;\\Ri\u0026lt;AJ\\JSAs NOV O 8 2002 JAMES I~/  By v,  iLfoCO!~~-vAc1, ~--~ \\ CLERK rn THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAL\"\\JSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLArnTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 1.2 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, John W. Walker, P .A, and respectfully move the court for al?-_ extension of time for an additional thirty days in which to file Notice of Appeal to the final judgment entered herein on October 11 , 2002. For cause, Joshua respectfully states: 1. On October 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for hearing regarding the relevance of 28 U.S.C.  455 to the cunent proceeding. Therein, Joshua sought an evidentiary hearing in which to explore the relationship of the Court's previous role in this litigation to the current proceedings. The Joshua Intervenors sought the oppo11unity to develop a record regarding his honor's role in opposing recusal requests in this numbered case which were made by at least two of the parties regarding the late Honorable Henry L. Woods. 2. On October 29, 2002, the Court entered an Order \"denying\" the Joshua \"Motion for Hearing.\" Therein, the Comi inter alia indicated that it had \"represented\" Judge Woods \"approximately fifteen years ago ... .. \" in this mentioned case in co1mection with a mandamus petition by the Little Rock School Distiict and the Joshua Intervenors ( the latter represented by Mr. Walker among others). This Comi stated that \"the mandamus iss~es h-;;:d nothi~g-to- d; v~th the merits of the underlying case.\" 3. The Comi went on to say, as a finding of fact, that when the case was assigned to it that counsel John W. Walker \" ... lmew full well that, thirteen years earlier, I had represented Judge in the mandamus proceeding that Mr. Walker. himself. helped initiate.\" [ tmderlining represents the Court's emphasis] 4. The Comi later reemphasized the point that :tvfr. Walker was counsel of record for Joshua and one of the moving paiiies [the Court's emphasis] who filed the petition for wiit of mandamus. The Court went on to indicate that it would be willing to revisit the issue \"only if' the \"b1iefs\" the Court filed when in private practice differed from his \"clear recollection.\"  .,:, The Court also noted other concerns that it would address upon receipt and review of the \"briefs\" which he filed in this case on behalf of Judge Woods. 5. The Joshua Intervenors have retrieved from the Eighth Circuit archives and attach herewith one of what the Court Order implies is several \"briefs\" which it filed when in private practice in this numbered case. The Joshua Intervenors have requested the 8th Circuit Court Clerk for the docket entries in connection with the appeals. In that way, the Court can ascertain with certainity if the Court filed additional briefs while in private practice in the case herein. 6. Joshua also notes that its counsel, contrary to the findings of fact in the Order of October 29, 2002, which findings were underlined for emphasis, did not file a petition for the 2 Writ of Mandamus regarding the Judge Wood's recusal. In the opinion of the Court of Appeals decision which the Court cites as its support for the emphasized proposition, the Court noted at footnote 6: \"The Joshua Intervenors raise this-argument in the form of an appeal from the DistJ.ict Comi' s denial of their motion for recusal. LRSD brings this argument through a petition for Mandamus directed to this Court seeking an Order directing recusal, a petition suppo1ied here by the Joshua Intervenors. [ underlining for emphasis] 7. The Joshua Intervenors intend to request that the Court review its attached brief prepared while in private practice in this numbered case-as well as any other brief which it prepared in this case for any pmpose- and to then reconsider the facts which it found sua sponte in its Order of October 29, 2002. 8. In the event that the Comi reconsiders its Order of October 29, 2002, the Court may be - inclined to, at least, modify its earlier order and to afford the requested relief which is set forth therein. It is clear_ that some of the Court's findings regarding its role when in private practice are inconsistent with the findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the same matter. 9. The Joshua Intervenors intend to file a motion for recusal in the event that the Court itself refuses to recuse after it has reviewed the attachments hereto. 10. Notice of appeal is to be filed herein not later than November 11, 2002. The Court may extend such ruling upon a showing of good cause. Rule 4(a)(5)(A), Fed. R. App. Pro. Joshua believes that good cause exists in that there are umesolved questions for the Court to address regarding recusal. Good cause also exits because piece-meal appeals may otherwise be avoided. 3 11. There is no prejudice to the Little Rock School District if the request to extend the. time for filing notice of appeal is granted. \\VHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of having related matters proceed concurrently and in the interest of justice, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that they be allowed up to and including December 11, 2002 in which to file their notice of appeal. 1 \u0026lt;7 ' I i / I '  ,/ J/ i . / ,'f;\" /9--1\\ 1) ' j i / te_-!ld/h'.t;;,.:.J. .. , Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respect~y sub1~tted, , ) /  -~ ~i~i~L it/ /.i-tlig;ip- Jol:m .W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN w. w ALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 74-3758 (501) 37/187 (Fax) I .,. .- / I 0?1--- - _., ,/. r /,~-_  // ~.I.. ,\u0026gt;'\\ \\..._: I , .1{:'';.,, ,; ., ( .It\" ; Rickey Hicks, 11,R :Bar No. 89235 L . ) Attorney at aw~ :Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent v J a,-x and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this _j2 day of u,t,,9-,,,. , 2002: Nir. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 i...,: Nir. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building . Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 722 0 1-3 4 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 173 8 8 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 John w: Walker 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 87-2150 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. Appellees. IN RE: LITTLE ROCK SCH60L DISTRICT, PETITIONER Petition for Writ of Mandamus Directed To the United States District Court - for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorab~e HENRY WOODS, Judge RESPONSE OF THE HONORABLE HENRY WOODS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WM. R. WILSON, JR. Wilson, Engstrom, Corum \u0026amp; Dudley Post Offi9e Box 71 _ Little Rock, AR 72203  (501) 375-6453 Attorneys for Respondent STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Little Rock School District (LRSD) moved The Honorabl.e Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to recuse himself on April 24, 1987. The Motion was denied on April 30, 1987. Almost four months after the Order denying recusal, the LRSD petitioned this Court for a Writ of Mandamus ordering Judge Woods to recuse. The LRSD bases its petition on newspaper clippings, a sua soonte show cause order, newspaper photographs of LRSD students and Judge Woods, the Judge's law clerk's trip to LRSD administrative offices to pick up a list of the names and school addresses o~ LRSD principals, alleged ~ parte co mmu n i cations , and a 1 et t e r from Ju d g e Woo d s to a for mer LRSD school board member. 1 ARGUMENT I. . THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MUST BE DENIED SINCE IT IS UNTIMELY. It is clear, beyond peradventure, that the issue raised by the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is \"keggy. 11 The district court entered its Order denying LRSD's Motion t o R e cu s e o n A p r i l 3 0 , l 9 8 7 , a n d i t w as n o t u n t i 1 A u gu s t 24, 1987, that LRSD filed the petition for a writ - - a delay of nearly four (4) months. This Circuit has held that an unsuccessful petitioner in a situation such as this can bring the question before the Court of Appeals by a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. L i d d e.11 ~ B d . o f E d . o f C i t y o f ___~ L o u i s , 6 7 7 F . 2 d 6 2 6 (8th Cir . 1982). It is certain, however, that such a petition must be timely - - as it was not in the case a:t bar. I n co n s i de r i n g a n II a pp e a r a n c e of p a rt i a 1 i t y 11. i s s u e under Sec. 455(a), the 7th Circuit considered a petition which was filed several months after motions to recuse were denied . The Court held: .The Writ of Mandamus is the vehicle by which we may exercise our supervisory powers over the district courts with respect to Sec . 455(a).To require a timely pet.it ion. for a writ of mandamus for a sole remedy serves another important purpose: that\" of preventing injury to the public perception of the judicial system before it has a chance to occur. If a party is deprived of its substantial rights of a trial before an actually biased judge, the harm can be remedied (though not costlessly) by a new trial before an unbiased judge. But, the harm to the public's perception of the judicial system when a judge who appears to be biased proceeds in a case is much more difficult to correct. Prevention in such circumstances is clearly preferable to attempt to cure. Accordingly, we hold that when a judge denies a motion to disqualify himself under Sec. 455(a), the moving party's sole recourse is to apply to this court immediately for a Writ of Mandamus:' We, therefore shall not review Judge Warren's several denials of Balistrieri' s motions under Sec. 455(a) . (Emphasis supplied) . United States v. Balistrieri 779 F.2d 1191, 1205. (7th Cir . 1985). In U. S . v. Olds 426 F.2d 562 (3rd Cir. 1970), the district cou-rt granted a motion to modify and correct or vacate a sentence despite the fact that the motion was filed well beyond the 120 day limit set by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Approximately three (3) months after the district court's order became effective , the Government petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to set aside his order modifying the sentence, The court declined to express an opinion on the propriety or legality of the questioned order, and denied the petition 11 because of the Government's unexcused tardiness in pursu_ing its challenge .n (426 F.2d at 565). The court held: ... There is no inflexible rule of timeliness and we hesitate to create any. Rather, the question in each case is whether und~r all the circum.stances the remedy was pursued with reasonable dispatch. While the appeal period is in no way controlling, we point out that Government appeals in criminal cases, when permitted, must be filed within thirty (30) days after the entry of the order appealed from . . I n .:th i s c a s e , th e G o v e r n m e n t waited nearly three (3) months before seeking relief in this. court. No excuse whatsoever has been suggested for its inaction . .   . In sum, we hold that by waiting nearly three (3) months before seeking relief in this court, thus permitting a material change in the Olds 1 status, the Government did not proceed with reasonable dispatch under the circumstances. 426 F.2d at 565-566. Since Judge Woods entered his written order denying 4 !1 I I ! I I I ~--1 I I I I I I 11/ Ol / U2 .L2 : HI t '.U 314244.2405 Cli.W'.l'IJJlil\u0026lt;ll%, recusal of April 30 1987, a number of substantive orders were entered in this case. On May 8 1 1987, the court entered an order which severed the Clark case from the consolidated school desegregations. The Joshua Intervenors have appealed from that order . The court entered a nineteen - page order on May 13, 1987 dealing with teacher assignments. The LRSD has appealed that order. A May 22, 1987 order regarding student assignments has been appealed by LRSD. The Co1.,1rt 1s order of May 26 regarding the assignment of ma~net teachers has been appealed by the Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors have also appealed a June 16, 1 .9.87 order modifying the per pupil expenditure for magnet ... students. The Knight Intervenors have appealed the court's Ju l y 7, 1987 order clarifying the role of the Magnet Review Committee, and the July 8 order which permitted the Pulaski County Special School , District to recall black teachers affirmatively, so as to retain an acceptable level of black staff. No party has appealed the court 1s order of July 21, but that order authorized PCSSD to acquire the Ti mex f a cility and convert it into an elementary school. That co n version hes taken Judge Woods denied the motion to recuse orally on !pril 29 7 1987. place_ and the 11Daisy Bates Elementary 11 School is now operating. A July 27, 1987 order amended NLRSD's plan in order to deal with possible segregative effects of Arkansas Act 624 of 1 9 8 7 . 0 n A u gu s t 3 , 1 9 8 7 th e co u rt e n t e r e d a n or ct e r directing LRSD to show cause why it should not be held in contempt. LRSD was held to be in civil contempt by order dated August 7, 1987. LRSD has appealed that order. It was not until August 24, 1987, shortly after LRSD had been held in contempt, that it felt moved to seek this writ. In fine, at least thirteen 03) orders which , subs t 'a n ti a 11 y affected the part i es i n this case were entered in the four months between the order denying recusal and LRSD ' s petition for writ of mandamus . Further, at least eleven appeals have been taken in that time . In dealing with a delay of this nature , the 1st Circuit, in In~ United Sho~ Machinery Corporation, 276 F.2d 77 (1st Cir. 1960) quoted with app r oval the following language : 6 7 A litigant cannot experiment with a judge presiding over the case. We cannot permi.t .. a lit.igant to test the mind of the trial judge like a boy testing the temperature of the water in the pool with h.is toe, and if found to his liking, decides to take a plunge . (276 F . 2d at 79). ----- It is apparent that petitioners filed this petition for a writ only after being stung by the contempt order of August 7, 1987 (while they were flush with victory in virtually every area of this litigation). The Petition was nowise timely and should be dimissed out of hand to prevent manifest injustice. II. LRSD'S \"EVIDENCEJ OF THE APPEARANCE OF LACK OF IMPARTIALITY IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE RECUSAL LRSD has characterized its faculty assignmentsand c on t r a ct re g a rd i n g th .o s e as s i g n me n ts as II ma n a g e me n t prerogative . 11 (LRSD Petition for Writ paragraph 2) . Judge Woods considered the faculty assignmens to be an integral p a r t o f  t h e s t u d e n t a s s i g n m e n t a s p e c t o f t h e L R S D Desegration Plan . LRSD's discontent with Judge Woods is that he has noticed sua sponte its patent, notorious deviations from court approved desegregation plan. The Judge has insisted that all par~1es comply with court approved desegregation plans. (March 27 hearing p. 14). This Court has recognized the history of noncompliance with desegregation plans and court orders in school desegregation cases in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (8th Cir. 1985) ( 11NLRSD has failed to comply fully with desegregation orders of the district court .. . and this Court. \" ) Id. at 420. ( 11The district court found that PCSSD had failed to comply with [Judge Henley's] decree and noted that, at trial, many PCSSD Board of Education members were not even aware of the contents of the decree.tr) Tbis was crystal\\ clear to LRSD. In the Court's letter/order of March 20, 1987, Judge Woods said: . However, I am determined that the plan which I approved will be carried out. If a delay is necessary, I want you to come to me- and discuss the reasons why that is so. I am of the opinion that the plan can be put into effect if the measures which I stated above are taken . . All of these district plans are to be carried out and carried out in an effective manner, and I hope I have made this clear. If we cannot implement these plan~ in a way to insure quality schools, then I want them delayed until we can implement them correctly. Some of the problems that we have encountered in these three districts have resulted from not carrying out orders of the court. Zinna mon is a case in p oint . I a m determined that my orders be carried out or the court b~ given a sufficient -reason why they cannot be carried out without being modif i ed. No one h as asked to modify the pLan which you submitted and I approved, and I expect that it will be fully and carefully complied i~ith in every detail . The student assignment segment of the LRSD Desegregation Plan (Plan) approved by the Court contains two primary components : (1) an initial assignment for each stude.nt and (2) an optional 11controlled choice \" component by which students who were unhappy with their i nitial assignments could request alternate assignments. The alternate requests were to be \"controlled \" or constrained by the requirements availability. of racial balance and the space On February 27, 1987, the district court approved the 11 broad outli n e \" of L RSD's student assignme n t plan . The initial assignments were to be made based on only two factors, \" racial equity and mi ni mal busing . 11 (Plan p: 13) . By contrast, the \"controlled choice 11 component of the Plan was quite specific: \"After parents have been notified of the schools to which their children have been assigned, '. they will have a period of one month\" in which to make an alternate choice. (Plan at 13) . \"Parent s w i lJ. be a ct i v e 1 y encouraged to  visit . schools before making their selections \" (Plan at 12). (Emphasis theirs). \"School visits will be arranged during and after school hours. 11 (Plan at 12). 11Parents will have direct access to teachers and principals in all schools. 11 (Plan at 12) . 11 At 1 e as t t w o w eeks p r i or t o the re gist rat i on period , ea ch school will conduct parent information meetings in the schools. \" (P.lan at 12). By the explicit language of the Plan, the choice component was meant to be not only \" contr,olled, 11 but \"infor:'med .\" Initial assignments were sent home with school children on Wednesday, March 18th . Parents were jnstructed that alternate choices would have to be returned to LRSD's administrative offices by Apr.il 1, 1987, thirteen days later . Those thirteen (13) days included two weekends, a teacher work day and a week of spring breik during which all schools were closed. Parents were effectively given three (3) days to visit and - - - - - - - --- --- ------------ - ~ Court specifically ordered LRSD to nmake as little change as possible in the present staffing .. 11 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p.2) . A conference was held on March 27, 1987 at the request of LRSD . The Court repeated its concern that LRSD had unilaterally short-circuited vital components of its Plan by shortening the time and by failing to have staff in place. Counsel for LRSD, in an effort to persuade the Court to permit the shortening of the time, represented to the Court that parents could visit with staff even if the time were shortened since the district was in 11the final phases of assigning staff. 11 (M.i;irch 27th hearing at p . 8). Counsel . 1_: for LR SD v o 1 u n teer e d that staff assign men ts co u 1 d be completed within \"seven !_Q ten days 11 (March 27th hearing at p. 8). This assertion was not made in answer to a question by the Court, but rather was announced early in the hearing. Yet, LRSD now contends, 11In an unprecedented action, the district court sua sponte ordered LRSD to re - assign its faculty within ten (10) days (Petitioner ' s  Brief, p . ix . ) . \"Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein. 11 (Proverbs 26 : 27 l - At the March 27th hearing, counsel for LRSD made this flat - footed statement: nThere are not going to be major changes in staff at any secondary school, even at any elementary school. 11 (March 27th hearing, p. 10). At this 2 time, the court did not know, though presumably counsel for LRSD did know, that LRSD and its teachers' union, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA), had consummated a \"supplemental agreement 11 to the Professional Negotiations Agreement (PNA) which was before the Court . This supplemental agreement, though not before the Court, differed materially from the LRSD desegregation 3 plan approved by the Court . Nonetheless, teacher assignments were made on April 10th in conformity with that supplemental agreement . By terms of the supplemental agreement, a _hypothetical \"model faculty\" was con..structed by computing the district aver~ges of the 1986~87 LRSD teacher pool for the following factors : (1) gender (2) education (3) experience (4) age and (5) race. By the terms of the 2 3 The first inkling the court had of the existence of this supplemental agreement was whe n it was attached to LRSD's April 22 Recusal Motion. At the April 27th hearing, LRSD contended that its Plan had always included the five factors l i sted above . LRSD's expert told the Court that 11 i n telligent people 71 would have understood that t):1e Pla,n included these constraints . (April 29 hearing, p . 255) . This agreement (which LRSD now contends was made nimmediately \" after July, 1986 (Petition p . 2)) was actually consu mm ated on March 5, 1987 . supplemental agree~ent, assignments macte for 1987 - 88 were required to mirror would tolerate but 1986 - 87 LRSD staff demographics and a s i x ( 6 ) /p e r c e n t de vi at i on f r o m th e average. This, ,in spite of the fact that LRSD knew it woufd add fourteen annexed schools and se~en thousand students in 1987- 88 . Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of this case could plainly see that balancing .five factors to within six percentage points of the exact average would require tremendous shifts in existing faculty. It had been clear since November, 1986, that LRSD would gain 7,000 new students (over 35% of its 1986-87 student population ) , w h i ch , w o u 1 d o b v i o u s 1 y '.' i n v o 1 v e h i r i n g ma ri y new fa cu l t y members. It is hard to understand why LRSD counsel, aware of the agreement, assured the Court on March 27th that there would \"not be major [staff] changes 11 (March 27th hearing, p . 10). As noted, the Court had no knowledge that this \"modeP would be used until April 20th. But simple logic reveals s er i o u s fl a.w s in the rn ode 1. F or e x a mp le , L RS D con ceded that the vast majority of elementary teachers in 1986- 87 were female. (April 29 hearing, p. 232). Yet, the 11model1' e. would freeze as \"ideal\" the 1986 - 87 ratio of . male to female teachers! This is not, however, a lawsuit concerning gender. It does concern race. The Plan approved by the district court states: \"The reorganized Little Rock School District should be staffed disegregatively accor ding to two policy guidelines: (1) 11staff ratios will comply with the Order of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which allows a deviation of one - fourth of the remedial guideline,\" and (2) \"black staff will comprise at least one-half (1 / 2) of all personnel in each position or job description. \" (Plan at p . 16, 17). The Plan furthe r states: \"The timetable fully to implement the staffing re medial policy guideline is five years. 11 (Plan ,at 17). It was a material change in the Plan for LRSD to agree to add four factors to the race issue; it was a material change to agree to a six percent deviation in the racial ratio rather than the Plan's 25%; it was a mater i al change to shorten the five year implementat i on to one year. LRSD complains that the Court noticed the massive teacher reassignments sua ~E...!:.~ (Petition, p. 3, .para graph l O) and further complains that the Court improperly concluded that LRSD had violated previous Orders . The L RS D a d m i t t e d by letter d at e d March 25, 1987 (Petitioner's Exhibit PX-5) and in open Court that it had changed the Plan without prior court a pp r Q v a t Cl e.a.r-1-:f-i-6-R-.D---a-1-m--.:i:-t--1;-e-1- \\r:i:-er-l1-,a..+L +i-nn\"\"g,.......,p'\"'r-.e~v .,i .. ,,,o;rQisc\" C\"'\"'.o;:;u;-;-;::r+=t_ ____ i orders. The LRSD cites not a single case to support its I position that a federal district court mus~ sit idly by while a school district notoriously violates court desegregation orders (and wait for some party to invite the Court to enforce its orders). In Busch Y...:._ Sea World.[ Qhio, 95 F . R.D. 336 (W.D . Pa. 1982) the Court took judicial notice that a certain corporation had begun an advertising blitz via newspapers, radio and television. The Court, in Barnes v. Bosley, 568 F. S-upp-. 14'Oo (E'.D. Mo. 1983), took judicial notice that the Democratic party was firmly in control of political .~ o f f i c ~ s i n S t . L o u i s . L i k. e w i s e , J u d g e D a vi es n o t i c e d sua sponte the actions of then-governor Orval Faubus. See Faubus v. United States 254 F . 2d 797 (8th Cir . 1958). 4 LRSD Ex. PX-9 is a letter from Judge Woods to .. Ruth Shepherd, an immediate past LRSD board member. LRSD contends that this indicates the judge 1s \"prejudgment \" of issues to be presented at the April 29th show cause hearing. As is apparent 1 on April 1, 1987, the date of the letter, staff assign men ts had not been made; no show cause Order had been issued. The Court had no reason to disbelieve LRSD counsel when he assured the Court four d a y s e a r 1 i e r th at th er e w o u 1 d b e n o ma j o r s t a f f ch-a n g e s . The language concerning disregard of the Plan in virtually e Ve r y d e t a i l i s an O b Vi Ou s r e f e re n C e- t O th e f a i 1 u re Of LRSD to carry out the features of controlled choice contained in the Plan . The Court had no way to know that as that letter was being written~ LRSD. was actively viO'\"lat rng the cfirecfioffsot he .March 27th Order. .,. I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I    I  '  \".\"' ~ Recalcitrant . school districts throughout this Circuit would delight in a holding th~t desegregation orders can be bol d-ly --arrd--p,:rb-1-rci.y-\u0026amp;e\"fIT~so J'. on g as no pa r-t y has the temerity or motivation to file a formal pleading. Multiple exhibits extracted from two local papers have be e n at t a ch e d t o th e L .RS D P et i t i on t o sup p o r t th. e proposition that a reasonable person would conclude that the appearance of impartiality had been lost through ex parte communications . To the contrary, the exhibits demonstrate only that the Petitioner's allegations are without basis in fact. Of the twenty-two articles submitted, five made no reference whatsoever to Judge I Woods. The remaining articles chronicle the reactions - of various groups and in~ividuals to orders issued by the Judge. In not one of the submitted articles does there appear an ex parte -comment attributable to the Judg7_ which go to the merits of any pending issue. Two newspaper photographs depict Judge Woods with students ironically LRSD students, not students from NLRSD or PCSSD. These photographs hardly create the appearance of bias against LRSD . Two articles refer to statements made by an unnamed spokesman for Judge Woods. Surely these triple hearsay statements (the newspaper reporter said that the unknown source said that the Judge said) cannot be considered as credible evidence justifying  the disquali~iG-act--i-G-H- --Of-- a- - ~g- . -- --- LRSD cites Price Brothers Co.~ Philadelphia Gear Corporation, 629 F.2d 444 (6th Cir. 1989) for the proposition that a Judge's sending his law clerk to gathe~ evidence is destructive to the appearance of impartiality. In Price Brothers, the Circuit Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. In the appeal of the proceedings after remand, the Sixth Circuit found that the law clerk's trip from the Southern District of Ohio to New York to observe the machines in the Plaintiff's factory did not ~ w-arranf r eversal. Price Brothers Co. ~ Philadelphia Gear .fS'...:.., 6 4 9 F . 2 d 4 1 6 ( 6 t,_ h C i r. 1 9 8 l ) . .:t The law clerk's viewing of the machine to help the Judge better understand how the machine worked was not considered as \"evidence\" in the case. Similarly obtaining a current list of principals in the LRSD was hardly 11evidence 11 in this case. The names and school addresses of the LRSD principals has never been in dispute. It is absurd to consider the picking up of an undisputed list of names and addresses as ngathering evidence. 11 Additionally, the Sixth Circuit in both Price Brothers opinions indicated that consent, even implied consent, to the law clerk's participation would be a factor in considering their later objection to the law clerk's action. By ER-S-B~ LRSD administrative offices (where at least two LRSD attorneys were present) and was told by the ~ecretary (after checking) that a list of principals was available . LRSD would also have Judge Woods recuse because delegations of LRSD students arrived unannounced at his office to present a petition complaining of LRSD's violations of its Plan. If such an incident requires recusal, then any party who wishes to go \"judge shopping 11 need merely show up at a judge's office with a photographer and a petition .  . ., III. IT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE ~ARTIES OR THE PUBLIC TO REQUIRE JUDGE WOODS TO RECUSE Notably, the L RSD seeks Judge Woods' recus a 1 lfas ed on .. 28 U.S . C. Sec. 455(a) which concerns the appearance of partiality rather than actual bias. In truth and in fact, LRSD has been the beneficiary of virtually all of Judge Woods' rulings over the five years of litigation in this school desegregation case. As Petitioner notes, Sec. 455(a) is primarily intended 1 q , I to insure public confidence in the impartiali.ty of the judicial process, not to protect litigants from actual Court of Appeals recently held that in a Sec. 455(a) rec u s al action, abs en t ..!:_~~ of person~ 1 bias , the reviewing Court should consider, inter alia, whether re-'-assignment to a dif_'_ferent judge would entail a waste and duplication out of proportion to the gain in preserving the appearance of fairness. Cinton v. Union Pacific R a i 1 r o a d f.2.:_, 813 F. 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 21 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) . This lawsuit now embodies well over nine hundred pleadings. It is difficult to imagine a more vivid illustration of d { spr~portionate waste and duplication involved in reassigning this case~~ this stage of the game. But more :~ i mp o ; t a n t 1 y , th e p u b 1 fc mu s t be a s s u r e ct th at ea ch p a r t y will abide by court orders, regardless of its status as 11pla int iff\" or \"defendant. 11 IV. CONCLUSION The district court correctly summed up the LRSD attitude in his April 30th Order when he noted: .LRSD's Motion to Recuse represents a time-worn tactic in sports contests and trials. When the umpire or judge calls you for a flagrant violation of the rules, your response is not to offer a defense for your conduct but to attack tlre, nrrvrre- oi'\"\"'ttre\"-j'trd~g, . . . . WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the LRSD Petition for Writ of Mandamus be summarily denied. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM \u0026amp; DUDLEY P. 0. Box 71 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-6453 Attorneys for Respondent .. . '.,(, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Response to Little Rock School District's Petition for Writ of Mandamus has been sent via Federal Express to all attorneys listed be-low whose mailing address is other than Little Rock, AR, and has been delivered by hand to all attorneys in Little Rock, AR on this 21st day of September, 1987 to : Philip E. Kaplan, Esquire 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201 P. A. Hollingsworth, Esquire 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Janet L. Pulliam, Esquire One Spri._nP- S~r~~-t,_ .Znd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 Randy McNair, Esquire 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard -W .- Roa-eh-e-H,-E-squ-re-~-  - ----~------------- -Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203 Theodore Shaw, Esquire NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, New York 10013 Robert C. Lowry, Esquire 905 Boyle Building Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 M. Samuel Jones, III., Esquire 2200 Worthen Bank Building LJttJe _fioc_k,. AB  7_2201 Philip K. Lyon, Esquire Stephen W. Jones, Esqu~re 3400 Capitol Tower -~ Capitol at Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Phil Neal, Esquire 208 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 William H. Trice, Esquire 211 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Robert Cabe, Esquire 1615 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Hillary Clinton, Esquire Rose Law Firm 120 East 4th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -. i  .., I 7 I I !  7 ! ~7- 7 j ,, Lazar Palnick, Esquire 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 John --M .- -El-i..J.l:w.J:.-me-F-, - ~1.1-i P.e --- -c/ o Ketron, Inc. 1700 North Moore Street Ste. Arlington, Virginia 22209 David Flynn, Esquire 1710 Civil Rights Division Room 5740 Department of Justice Washingtbn, D.C. 20530 Carl R. Brents, Clerk U. S. District Court Post Office . Box 869 Little Rock, AR 72203 Sharon Streett Department of Education 304A Arch Ford Education State Capitol Mall Little _R_ock, _ Ajl  l2~01 Building .... : ... ,,.. SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT As Petitioner has noted, the Motion to Recuse is --- ------ ---------~----------........ - - - -- purportedly ~ottomed upon statements and actions taken by the district court in response to LRSD ' s faculty assignment plan. Petitioner has requested oral argument and Respondent will be pleased to have this issue argued orally. At the same time, however, Respondent urges the Court to consider this specific issue (recusal) in an expedited manner. Otherwise, thousands of students will be attending school under plans that are clouded by this issue. This issue can be argued in fifteen minutes per side. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMM-A-RY AN{) R-EQ+J-E-S'f-~H\u0026gt;,R G-R-Ab  -A-RGlJ.M-E-N..'f .. ,-,--------- -----TABL E OF CONTENTS .. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. STATEMENT OF ISSUES . STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENTS I. THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MUST BE DENIED AS ii iii iv-v 1 UNTIMELY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. LRSD I S \"EVIDENCE 11 OF THE APPEARANCE OF LACK OF IMPARTIALITY IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE RECUSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - - -- ~. III. IT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE PARTIES OR THE PULIC TO REQUIRE JUDGE WOODS TO RECUSE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CONCLUSION ADDENDUM i i .... .. 20 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Barnes v. Bosley r- . 5.6.K. E .. S.U.p.p Mo. 1983) ... .. ..   Busch v . Sea World of Ohio, 95 F . R.D. 336 (W.D . Pa.1982) . . . . . . . .... Cinton v . Union Pacific Railroad Company, 813 F.2d917 (9th Cir . 1987) .. .. . Faubus v. United States, 254 F. 2d 797 (8th Cir . 1958) . ...  .. . . .. . lE_ Re United Show Machinery Corporation, 276 F . 2d 77 (1st Cir. 1960) ... .. . . Liddell v . Board of Education of City of St. Louis'; 677 F . 2d 676 (8th Cir . 1982J. Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F . 2d 404 (8t fi Cir . 19-8\"5Y . . .  ... .  .. . .. . 16 16 20 16 6, 7 2 8 Price Brothers Co.~ Philadelphia Gear Corp . ~ 629 F.2d 444 (6t'.b Cir . 1980) . . . 18 v,,. Price Brothers Co . v . Phi l adelphia Gear Corp., 6 4 9 F . 2 d 416 ( 6~ C i r . 19 81 ) . . . -. - .- . . . . 1 8 United States v . Balistrier i, 779 F . 2d 1191 (7th Cir.1985) . . . . . . . 2, 3, 20 United States v . Olds, 426 F . 2d 562 (3rd Ci r . 1970) .. -. -. - .-. . . . . . . . STATUTES 28 U. S . C. Sec .. 455(a) ..... . ...... . passim i i i STATEMENT OF ISSUES I. Whether Petitioner's failure either to appeal the April 30th Order denying the recusal motion or to petition this Court for a Writ of Mandamus for almost four months bars this application for mandamus relief. In Re United Show Machinery Corporation, 276F.2\u0026lt;;! 77 (1st Cir. 1960) United States v . Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) United States~ Olds, 426 F.2d 562 (3rd Cir. 1970) II. Whether the district court judge abused his discretion --by -flndi ng that a reasonable per~on knowing all the pertinent facts would believe that Judge Woods could n o t b e i mp a rt i a 1 t o th e\" L i t t 1 e R o ck S ch o o 1 D i s t r i ct w h e n the 11 evidence\" consists of: a. Newspaper clippings covering publicity surrounding the Judge's Orders; b. Newspaper photographs of the Judge pictured with LRSD students; c. A responsive letter to a former member of LRSD Board of Directors from i V the Judge; d. A trip to LRSD administrative LRSD principals for the 1987- 88 school year; e. Non - specific allegations of ex ~~!~ telephone conversations, unsupported by specific dates, times, or people or by affidavits . Barnes v. Bosley, 568 F.Supp. 1406 (E.D. Mo . 1983T Busch v . Sea World of Ohio, 95 F.R . D. -336 (.W.-D- . .e.a _ .198.2) -- - -- Faubus v. United States, 254 F .2d 797 (8th Cir. -1958) ,,., : ~ Price Brothers Co. v . Phi l adelphia Gear Corp . , 649 F . 2d 416 (6th Cir. 1981) III. Whether it is in the interest of the parties or the public to require Judge Woods to recuse absent proof of actual bias . Cinton v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 813 F . 2d 917(9th Cir . 1987) - United States v . Balistrie r i, 779 F. 2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985 V IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. 4:82CV00866 WR W/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al ~RS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED NOV 1 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL This case has been tried and decided, and all parties are entitled to have it resolved, once and for all, as soon as reasonably possible. Counsel for Joshua indicates that he anticipates filing a recusal motion at some time in the indefinite future. In my judgment, it would be inappropriate to delay this case because such a motion will be, or might be, filed. Accordingly, the request for an extension is denied. I'm inclined to agree that the Eighth Circuit should be afforded the opportunity to decide any recusal issue that may arise, along with other issues already decided. So, if Joshua files a recusal motion promptly, I will rule on it promptly. If Joshua doesn't prevail on the recusal motion, they can move the Eighth Circuit to consolidate the issues on appeal. Another order will be entered shortly which will address other issues raised by Joshua's Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day ofNovember, 2002. w~t!f () \u0026lt;-- K lfll~111if' m. R. Wilson, r. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE L 7 0 1 IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al -MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGIIT, et al DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION Olf TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL This case has been tried and decided, an.d aH parties are entitled to have it resolved, once and for all, as soon as reasonably possible. Counsel for Joshua indicates that he anticipates filing a recusal motion at some time in the - indefinite future. In my judgment, it would be inappropriate to delay this case because such a motion will be, or might be, filed. Accordingly, the tequest for an extension is denied. I'm inclined to agree that the Eighth Circuit should be afforded the opportunity to decide any recusal issue that may arise, along with other issues already decided. So, if Joshua files a recusal motion promptly, l will rule on it promptly. If Joshua doesn't prevail on the recusal motion, they can move the Eighth Circuit to consolidate the issues on appeal. Another order will be entered shortly which will address other issues raised by Joshua's Motion. fT rs SO ORDERED this llt!.1 day of November, 2002. w.~ !L({ZPh111tr- UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE  TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 Chris Heller \u0026amp; Clay Fendley Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennis Hanson Ann MAl'shall 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 663-6939 374-4187 682-2591 371-0100 There are Z.., pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 413 Little Rock, A.-kansas 72201 Christy Conrad, LRSD Law Clerk 604-5143 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS . 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED NOV 1 3 2002 QFflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 1..,_v  1r, yyppa r,u ,,-1 IV ,.....,;\u0026lt;, u.s~ilkf.FcQRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 1 2 2002 ~~MES~~Ep ? PLAINTri?~P. CL~ DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS  AMENDED ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL This case, as it relates to LRSD, has been tried and decided, and all parties are entitled to have it resolved, once and for all, as soon as reasonably possible. Counsel for Joshua indicates that he anticipates filing a recusal motion at some time in the indefinite future. In my judgment, it would be inappropriate to delay this case because such a motion will be, or might be, filed. Accordingly, the request for an extension is denied. I'm inclined to agree that the Eighth Circuit should be afforded the opportunity to decide any recusal issue that may arise, along with other issues already decided. So, if Joshua files a recusal motion promptly, I will rule on it promptly. If Joshua doesn't prevail on the recusal motion, they can move the Eighth Circuit to consolidate the issues on appeal. Another order will be entered shortly which will address other issues raised by Joshua's Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12thday ofNov, e,._20-m=.0'-2-.- b-e_-r-_-------- THIS DOCUMENT ENTERLJ ON  Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. DOCKET SHEET iN COMPLIANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WITJi RULE 58 AND/OR~R7C9P (a ON lf-/;....,o,_-BY ~?'7\"\"---\"-'-'=-== DiLLWiLSON JUDGE UNiTEO STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS IKIIJ W. CAPITOL, HOOM 423 LITfl.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 7220i-332$ \\~U I J tJiU4-:t l 'tU Fii.:slmlle (GOf) \u0026amp;G45146 -l\\lf-'lm....=...\u0026gt;....,...... ..hAr 10 ')()()\"') _...,~ .... -, ---- BYP'AX Mr. Chris Heller \u0026amp; Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Sam Jones 376-2147 376-9442 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. John Walker Mr. Dennis Hanson Ms. Ann Marshall \".\u0026gt;'7C: 1 f'l/')'7 ..J t ._J-.LU..GI 663-6939 374-4187 682-2591 371-0100 RE: Littie Rock t\u0026gt;chool District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., 4:82CV00866 WRW /JTR Enclosed is a copy cf an Order ,.;vhich amends the Order I entered earlier toda:f in which I denied Joshua's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeai. The first sentence of the Amended Order is simply to narrow the scope of the Order-- since we are considering LRSD, a..1'1.d not the othe:r school districts . cc: The Honorable J . Thomas Ray Original to the Clerk \\ 1/m. R. \\1Jilson, Jr.  TO: F.A_X COVER SHEET ONITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTEPJV DISTPJCT OF ARKA.lfSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 Chris Heller \u0026amp; Cfay Fendley Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennis Hanson Ann Marshall 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 663-6939 374-4187 682~259} 371-0H!O DATE: NotJQ..vv\\htlf ! 7-, zooz_ There 2re 3=, pages, including this Co...-er Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of U.S. District Court 600 West Capito!, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas i2201 Christy Conrad, LRSD Law Clerk _604-5143 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. * * * * 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors, * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 1 2 2002 In Joshua's Motion for Extension of Time to file notice of appeal, filed on November 8, 2002, they object to the statement in my order of October 29, 2002 in which I state that Mr. Walker helped to initiate the mandamus proceeding (against Judge Woods). Technically, Joshua is correct. On a review of the record, it appears that Mr. Walker did not proceed via mandamus, but, instead, Joshua directly appealed Judge Woods' denial of Joshua's motion for him to recuse. Joshua's position, in this regard, clearly elevates form over substance. Regardless of how it was styled, Joshua was seeking the identical relief sought by LRSD back at that time-- the removal of Judge Woods from the case. I quote again from the Eighth Circuit's opinion: We tum now to the arguments made by LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors that the District Court should have granted their motion for recusal. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 1301. There is an eloquent silence in Joshua's most recent motion -- it does not address the issue of waiver and estoppel. The point here is that Joshua's counsel knew to a lead pipe certainty of my -2- representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987. In fact, the certificate of service on the Eighth Circuit brief! submitted on behalf of Judge Woods shows Mr. Walker as one of those lawyers who was served. (See Response of The Honorable Henry Woods, US. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- which was attached to Joshua's November 8 motion). This being so, it is hard not to believe that Joshua's counsel -waited to see how the case turned out, and, when the result did not suit them, they then raise the recusal issue. The Eighth Circuit has long disapproved of this tactic . ... .it is clear that some of the Court's findings regarding its role when in private practice are inconsistent with the findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the same matter .... I am without a clue as to what Joshua means by the above-quoted language. In any event, after having reviewed the brief that I filed on behalf of Judge Woods in 1987 I see no reason to change my mind in any respect, and see nothing in the brief that adds anything to Joshua 's earlier motion for a hearing. None of the issues, listed by way of history only, in that brief were before me in the current litigation. And, as stated in my earlier order, I represented none of the parties, and had no involvement in the merits of the case. So, with respect to my order of October 29, 2002, I'll stand pat -- Joshua's request that I reconsider that order is denied. rft IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 2 day of November, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERL.J ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WI/Tt._ RULE 58 AND/OR 7~9 )) FFR RCCFP ON _t_/;)..,{;))--BY ~ -7~_...,\u0026lt;;..:'--~- 9Nr!lOllNOW NOllVS3HS3S30 ~O 3~1.HO ZOOl 8 I AON LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. i\\1RS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KN1GHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 1 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINO NOTICE OF APPEAL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors give notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to Honorable William R. Wilson Jr. 's memorandum opinions and/or judgments entered herein on September 13, 2002 and October 11, 2002 respectively. ) ,/i) .,, ,/ ~- ,/ ,, ~!,, '/!Ji.;f I f.-,.,. . J/._ /J/!,rla_ 1 ---:\"i;:J Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 J n . Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 Rickey H. Hicks Attorney At Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been forwarded to all counsel of record via United States mail, postag repaid on this 2th day 'November, 2002. / \\ RECEIVED FiLr::0,-. ;:::.,s lJ.s. DIST-R \"- --n, TERN DISTRICT COURT ICT ARKA,\"iJSAS NOV 1 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOV 18 2G02 JAMES W ti, By   ilcCORMA CK Ct  \" , -ER!'( IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlJRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PlJLASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. NfRS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE W. Ki'\\ITGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS PCSSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL STTE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court further extend the time for their response to the pending motion of the PCS SD regarding the construction of a middle school in the Maumell e area. The Joshua Intervenors have requested the perspective of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the subject. The parties have not yet been privy to that for the reasons which relates to the personal circumstances of the ODM Director, M,s. Nfa.rshall. (See Exhibit 1 - Letter dated November 18, 2002 to Honorable Judge William R Wilson) Counsel for Joshua have sought to obtain the concurrence of the PCS SD counsel and learned that he is out ill today. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court extend the time to and including December 6, 2002 for their response to PCSSD's Motion for Approval of 1'liddle School site. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) ./ ./ CERTIFlCA TE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent via United Stat es mail postage prepaid to all counsel ofrecord on this 1g r1i day of Novem.,b er, 200J- . . /: ,'\\ I I ./ / ( /~ !-- '1-- C/?L_,{/- 17 '\\ ': 1 ,,, VVV'-- vr \" .;/r c,.\u0026lt;.. '---\"'L/ .. 2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. '\\iVALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA,'{ (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 604-5149 November 18, 2002 .Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Case No_ 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: OF COUNSEL ROBE..\"'l.T McHENRY. P _-\\.. DONNA J . .McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON Ro.w LITTLE ROCK. ARK.-u'IS.-\\S 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3423 ~Lill: mchenryci@swbell.nec RECEIVED NOV 1 9 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING We asked the Court to extend the time for responding to the PCSSD's motion for approval of middle school site until tomorrow, November 19, 2002. The court allowed the request. A partial basis for the request was the intercession of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with a possible report for the use and benefit of the parties. No one objected to ODNf's involvement. In the meantime, ODM.Director Ann Marshall has experienced well known personal problems of increasing magnitude over the past several weeks which resulted in the funeral of her husband, Mr. Norman Marshall on Saturday, November 16, 2002. We can . understand the reason for any delay from that office. On the basis of those unfortunate circumstances, we are requesting that the Court extend the ODM up to and including December 3, 2002 in which to make its report. We will be prepared to respond to the pending motion of Mr. Jones within three days thereafter and would request that we be allowed!until December 6, 2002 to make that submission. I appreciate whatever consideration the Court will allow. JWW:js cc: :ivfr. Sam Jones Ms. Ann 1Iarshall All Other Counsel EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERTS . LIN D SEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX, JR .  TROY A . PRICE PATR ICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR . KATHRYN A . PRYOR GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD . JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATH LYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR . CHARLES L. SCHLU MBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JO NES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTI NA E . BROWNSTE IN WALTER McSPA DOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE JOHN 0 . DAV IS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY Via Hand Delivery 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R . VAN DOVER Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjones@wlj.com November 19, 2002 The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 J . MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY, Ph .D .  MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING ERIKA ROSS SCOTT ANDREW IRBY HOLLY A. ACEE MICHELLE HARGIS DILLARD PATR ICK 0 , WILSON Licensed to practice before the Unffed States Patent and Trademark Office RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a copy of the PCSSD objection to Joshua's request for a further delay in ruling upon the pending PCSSD motion respecting a new middle school in Maumelle. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: 380184-v1 Judge J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP drrs.,,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL .DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOV 2 0 2002 INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO JOSHUAINTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION FO TIME TO RESPOND TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE The PCSSD, for its response states: 1. The PCSSD objects to the further requested enlargement of time. 2. Previously, the parties negotiated an enlargement of time until and including November 19, 2002, for the response of Joshua. 3. The PCSSD is unaware of any directive by this Court to the ODM as respects this issue. The PCSSD notes, however, that the ODM, unlike Joshua, was a full participant in the site selection process. 4. Accordingly, the PCSSD respectfully submits that Joshua has not advanced a good and sufficient reason to further postpone the process of this Court ruling upon the pending request of the PCSSD to locate its new middle school in Maumelle. 380181-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the Joshua motion be denied and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November 19, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile on Mr. John Walker and via U.S. mail on each of the following: VIA FACSIMILE Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 380181 -v1 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 1::0W'AHO L , WRl(,t'l't pan,. u 11~ R:O!H'.J:tT S . LlNO~EY fU 13- 199tl 18AAC A , SCOTT, J\" . JOHN G . LI LE 0:0~1)0~ S. RATHER , JR. TE~RY L. MATHfWS ;:;. .:..;;c M. ~c,w..,;. ROGE~ A. G, ASOOW C DOVC LAS a~r-a,qc , .:~. PATRICK J . COSS A l_.$ Tt')N ..Jl:MHIN tlS . J~ JOHN R. TISDALE l(ATMLYN GR4VES M. BAMU'EL J ON$ Il l JOHN WII..LIAM .!SPIV~Y Ill Lt'~ J , MULOROW 11 .M. N0~1'0N i;H;..FH,,fS C. F~1CE. CHAACES T. COLEMAN J1't-'fe J . v .. o veR EDWIN L LOWTHER . JR. CH.-.~L~.! I. .!CMLUMIP!!:'lG''!P\\ W~LTf.R E. MAY OREOOAY T . JONES H . Kt lTM MORRISON lli!TTINA E. lllAOWNSTEIN WALTiA Mc.SPA00fN ROGt.R 0 . ROWE ;o;-.1,_ c. oa,ns JUOY s rMMONS M@NJIY Via Hand Delivery WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORME:YS ;\\ \"! L!'.. 'N 200 WEST CAP ITOL AVENUE SUl'r E. 220~ LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 1n 01 . 3699 (50 1) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376942 OF COuN'iEL ALSTON JENN INQS RCXAi.C ;.. . ,.:.;c; BRIJCf A. . LINOSEY J.11kf! ~ R.. VAN CCV~~ Wri ter, Olrecl Di a l No . So 1.21 2.12r3 .,)ones@w1J.com November 19, 2002 The Honorable V\\Jm. R. Wilson, Jr. 600 West Capito!, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 K IM8RI. Y \\l'/000 TUC J\u0026lt;fF( ~,. 1 f C.CA , J,;.: .  TR:OV A, P~1ce ::i:. \":'R::.~;.. 2 :;.:~~:, H.:..~~l~ JAMES M MOOOV. JR . 11.t.TMDV lli! .~ . P R VOP J . MARI( 0.4\\/JS CI.A I Ft E SMOW8 Ml.. NCOCK l( E,Vlf'ril V-t . K!.NNEOV JEaav J. SALUNGS WILLIAM .:!TUAl'l1' JACK.SON MICWAEL O 8A.R:NES l!.7i;;:.,;a;,.. ~ . LANCA,5Te l'f JUDY ROBINSON WJL6tR l(':\"L: r,. W:t .. :-Ot.' C , TAO 80M4 NNON Ki; l!, T I U . Uf')l'){W J . C\"AP.US OOUGHtRT'f' M . SEAN HATCH .J . ANO\"EW' VlN~S .JUST IN T . A U.EN CHRISTINE J. OAUOMER,TV . Pl'l.0  MICHfLLE hi . KAEMMERLING ER+li\\ A. ~OS~ SCOTT ilNDAEW 1R6Y \u0026gt;; Ci..._; A. ;..o~~ '-\"1 1CHEl.. i. ! MAR.0 13 OILLAR:0 P A. 1'\"-JCI( .t\" wn .. SON L\"='9,,~~t1 ti:i ,ar!!:eti-:.e ~~~ !l,e ~!':!?~ 51\"1 Psrenr ena Tr\u0026amp;ll9rnsfl\u0026lt; Office Littie Rock Schooi District v. PuIasK1 County Special School District; et al. r USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00B66WRW ., . ( Re: Dear Judge Wilson: --,/\\If~/~ JV ' l\u0026gt;\"' Enclosed is a copy of the PCSSD objection to Joshua's request for a further delay in7 r'J!ing upon the per.ding PCSSD motion ;espacting a new middle schooi in iviaumelie. / MSJ:ao Enc!. cc/w/enc!.: 38C1S4-v1 Judge J. Thomas R.ay All Counsel of Record Cordiaiiy yours, ':AAt.AI cmr-. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP r;}.J~ oAt-J~ ~ ~A- Jones, !II iJli., ,J I_ If-() 2- ( ' , - /'d_ ~/4 t-1~ /4r C~\" I n. _ ~.J)/) /11,-,1 /J~ I V ./ ,//' - d\"rlf~' )U ..... V.  TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA.i.\\TSAS Telepb.one 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 Chris Heller \u0026amp; Clay Fendley Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennb Hanson Ann Marsha!! 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 663-6939  374-4187 682-2591 371-0100 There are Y pages, including this Co\\.er Sheet, being sent by thfa facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Jud e m. R. Wilson, Jr. U. S. District c'ourt 600 West Capito!, Room 423 Little Rock, Ar-kansas 72201 Christy Conrad, LRSD Law Clerk 604-5143 RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTi'\u0026lt;ICT COURT NOV 2 1 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OFFICEOF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTER.t~ DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV 2 0 2002 DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ___~ P=L~AIN~=T=I=~=p=- c=L-E-R---K VS. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al R ECEIVf r- DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al r\" DESEer'\" ... ~ . .i .. G ORDER Yesterday, I received a letter and motion from Joshua's counsel requesting an extension of their deadline for responding to PCSSD's motion for approval of a middle school site. Joshua - requested a new deadline of December 6, 2002, in order to allow the ODM up to and including December 3, 2002, to report to the panies regarding the motion. Joshua's request for an extension is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2/4. u)~L=-= Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET ~LIANCE WITH~ULE 58 AN~  oN //~MJ;)::) sv~~~g,~ 708 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 de Case: 4:82-cv-00866 FILED u S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV 2 5 2002 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. \"MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATH;ERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED DEFENDANTS NOV 2 6 2002 INTERVENORS DFFICE0F INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Court has received the 2002-2003 budget for the Office-of Desegregation Monitoring. The budget is attached to this Order for the parties' review. The parties have to and including fifteen days from entry of this Order to file objections regarding the proposed budget. ,\\ IT IS SO ORDERED tlris lS_ day ofNovember, 2 1 00/ ~---------------- -- / 4 ~ - UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 A~79C)) FRCP , 0 N / /-e,..S--O ~ \\., Q,0._, \u0026amp;-J 3 -Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District ot Arkansas Jls. Marshall, Federal Monitor November 20, 2002 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Attached is the ODM budget for 2002-03, which reflects your requirements. The format of the budget document follows that of our previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. Revenue for the year is apportioned among the three school districts according to the previous year's October 1 enrollment. Once the October 1, 2002 enrollment is known, we will adjust each district's contribution to conform to those figures. As is our practice, we credit the difference in budgeted expenses and actual expenditures proportionately to the school districts according to each district's pro-rated contribution to our budget. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will gladly provide it. Sincerely yours, ~77(~ Ann S. Marshall ~ v\u0026lt;c: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Enc. - - - OFFI CE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING: BUDGET FOR 2002-03 i i ' I I l I I I I REVENUE Sta te of Arkansas LR SD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD's share of the budget NL RSD 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET 200,000.00 200,000.00 : 200,000.00 241,568.62 241 ,568.62 181 ,288.00 70,1 00.35 70,100.35 43,979.00              ,o       ..             u 171,468.27 171,468.27 : 137,309.00 I Budget allocation 87,824.70 87,824.70 i 65,909.00 Minus credit from previous year 1.. ..... 25,485.69_ _ ....... 25,485.69 .. i15'989_00. . Equals NLRSD's share of the budget I 62,339.01 62,339.01 ! 49,920.00 PC SSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year 177,677.68 , 177,677.68 133,341.00 ....... 51 ,559.96 .. \\ ........ ?.:.:~~.~.:~ ........... ~~:~.~.:~ .. Equals PCSSD's share of th~_b u_d_g_et~1_ _1_ 26_,_1_1_7. 7_2--+-_126,_11_7.72~ ; _ 1_0_0_,9_9_3_o._o___. l I Int erest 0.00 I 10,554.71 ' 0.00 I I I I I To tal Revenue 707,071 .00 717,625.71 ! 580,538.00 No te: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, luding bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, QOM applies this amount toward each school trict's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed dget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the rollment numbers for the current year become available. inc dis bu en EXPENDITURES 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET C ommunications 10,000.00 i 9,679.11 I 9,700.00 i 1 D ues and Fees 4,000.00 1,763.00 ; 439.00 I I E quipment 6,000.00 2,262.59 i 0.00 Fo od Services 200.00 212.89 ! 0.00 M anagement Services 20,000.00 2,350.00 : 5,000.00 ! p eriodicals 4so.oo I 301 .94 ' 80.00 ! p rinting \u0026amp; Binding 6,000.00 i 5,076.56 6,000.00 Pr of \u0026amp; Tech Services 6,500.00 j 1,655.00  1,700.00 R ent 46,231.00 \\ 46,230.96 47,896.00 I R epairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 1,000.00 379.73 : 400.00 I R I esource Library 200.00 ! 447.83 : 0.00 ! s alaries 469,296.00 443,296.24 i 410,770.00 B enefits 109,794.00 100,616.05 ; 91 ,166.00 ' , St aff Development 1,000.00 89.34 : 0.00 ! ' s upplies 7,750.00 7,067.09 6,643.00 , Tr avel 18,000.00 4,078.10 200.00 In surance 650.00 -197.00 544.00 T otal Expenditures 707,071.00 625,309.43 i 580,538.00 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2002-03 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be :rreconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 10/1/01 % of Total 2002-03 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Allocation LRSD 25,367 I 47.64 1 1a1.2aa NLRSD 9,220 17.32 I 65,909 PCSSD 18,657 35.04 I 133,341 I 1 State of AR N/A I N/A I 200,000 Total 53,244 100.00 580,538 2001-02 Credit {Budget not spent)  I 43,979 ! 15,989 \\ 32,348 I N/A j 92,316 I 2002-03 Budget Payment 137,309 49,920 100,993 200,000 488,222 This chart shows that the 2002-03 Budget Allocation, the 2001-02 Credit, and the 2002-03 Budget Payment are apportioned among the three school districts according to last year's October enrollment numbers. After the final 2002-03 enrollment has been tallied, we will adjust the figures accordingly and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2002-03 budget. Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above. that we use to determine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of OD M's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of ODM' s unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM' s budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM' s budget before the close of the current fiscal year. Page 3 EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or infonnation. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. I 2001--02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures i 2002-03 Budget i .__ 9,679.11 I s.100.00 I _____ ......._ ________ __._ ___ 10,000.00 Dues and F~es: Expendirures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. j 2001--02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures I 2002-03 Budget ! J._ __4_ ,o_o_o.o_o ....I.. _____1 _,_76_3_.o_o .i... _ ___ 439.oo I Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. I 2001--02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures I I 6.000.00 i 2.262.ss I 2002--03 Budget ! I 0.00 j Food Services: Expenditures for fooci or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. I 2001--02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures I I 200.00 I 212.ss I 2002-03 Budget ! 0.0Q II I Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. ! 2001--02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures I 2002--03 Budget ; \\'--___2 0_o,oo_.o_o-'j- _____2 .3s_o.o_o-'l- ____s, ooo.oo ! Page4 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. I 2001-02 Budget ! 450.00 I 2001-02 Expenditures I 301 .94 I 1 i 2002-03 Budget ! ao.oo I I Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job pnntmg and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2001-02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures ! 2002-03 Budget e.000.00 I s.076.56 I e.000.00 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2001-02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures 2002-03 Budget e.soo.oo I 1.6ss.oo 1,700.00 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2001-02 Budget / 2001-02 Expenditures I 46,231.00 I 46,230.96 I 2002-03 Budget ! 47.896.oo I Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2001-02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures 1,000.00 379.73 I 2002-03 Budget I 400.00 i Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. ' 2001-02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures i 200.00 447.83 I ! 2002-03 Budget ! I 0.00 ; I Page 5 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2001-02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures 2002-03 Budget I 469,296.00 443,296.24 410,TTO.OO I Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2002-03 salarv Name of Employee 2001-02 Salary I 2002-03 Salary Ann Marshall 116,688.00 116,688.00 I Melissa Guldin 1 54,368.00 21,842.00 Gene Jones 2 57,021 .00 57,021 .00 Margie Powell 67,960.00 67,960.00 Horace Smith 67,960.00 67,960.00 r\"'011, -,ai':-.c, : I 51 ,011 .00 51,011 .00 Linda Bryant 28,288.00 28,288.00 Total 443,296.00 410,TTO.OO 1Melissa Guldin retired on September 30, 2002. 2Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2001-02 Budget \\ 2001-02 Expenditures I 2002-03 Budget 109.794.oo 1 100.s1s.os I 91 .166.oo I Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's 2001-02 budgeted fringe benefits: Name ! Car Social I Retire- Hospital- Life I Dental I Hospital I I Short Total I Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. I Indemnity Term Benefits I Brown i 1.800.00 I 6,981 .88 Ii 14,218.56 2,253.12 44.16 I 238.56 : 60.96 1 62.88 25,660.12 Guldin ! 300.00 I 1,693.83 ! 1,667.04 563.28 11 .04 I 59.64 i 15.24 I 15.72 4,325.79 Jones i 960.00 4.435.55 l -0- -0- .o- I .o- I .o- I I -0- 5,395.55 Powell !; 1,200.00 s .290.14 I 82,99.20 2,253.12 44.16 i 238.56 60.96 \\ 62.88 I 17,449.62 i I Smith I I 62.88 ! I 1,200.00 5,290.74 I 8,299.20 2,253.12 44.16 238.56 60.96 ! 17,449.62 Ramer I 0.00 3,902.34 l 6,121.32 2,253.12 44.16 !i 238.56 60.96 I 1 62.88 12,683.34 Bryant ! 0.00 2,164.03 i ! I 3,394.56 2,253.12 27.60 II 238.56 60.96 j 62.88 8,201.71 Total I 5,460.00 29,759.11 I 41,999.88 11,828.88 215.28 I 1,252.44 320.04 I 330.12 91,165.75 Page 6 I ' I I I I I I ' i I ! I i Staff Development: Services performed by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. j 2001-02 Budget j I 1,000.00 I 2001-02 Expenditures I 2002-03 Budget I 89.34 ! 0.00 / I Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more compiex units or substances. \\ 2001-02 Budget \\ 2001-02 Expenditures j 2002-03 Budget ! I 7,750.00 I 1.001.09 I s.643.oo I Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. ! 2001-02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures i 2002-03 Budget , I I 18,000.00 j 4 ,078.10 j 200.00 I Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2001-02 Budget \\ 2001-02 Expenditures ! 2002-03 Budget ! I 650.00 j (197.00) j I 544.00 ! Page7 EAsTMRG(f%5/2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ISTRJcT ARKfJSA.s EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANSAS Nov WESTERN DIVISION 2 5 20 02 -~:_MES W. McCORMACK, ~--- CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FF DEPCLERI( V. CASE NO. 4 : 82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL 'DISTRICT NO . 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . KATHERINE KNIGHT,, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 2 6 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS Motion for Recusal of Dis_tric\\ Judge  and .for Vacating of : Ord~rs., Rulings and -nidgments  The Joshu a Jntervenors. respectfully move for the entry of - orders providing for the recusal of the court (Hon . Wil l iam R. Wils.on, Jr.) and for the vacating of all orders , rulings and judgments, including the memorandum and j udgment of September 13 , 2002, e ntered subsequent to the reass i gnment of this case to t his court (Judge Wilson) . This motion is based upon 28 U. S . C,455(b) (2), Rule 60(b) (6), Fed . R. Civ. Pro., the follo~ing allegations, the decl aration of Robert Pressman , the affidavits of Rickey Hicks and John W. Walker , and the accompanying memorandum. 1 . On November 30, 1982, the Little Rock School District filed this case , Civil Action No . 82 - 866. The Honorable Henr y L . Woods was then assigned to handle the matter . 2. On March 23 , 1984 , the Court of Appeals for t he Eighth 1 - - - Circuit held that Judge Woods had erred, when he refused to allow the intervention in this case of class representatives of African American students in the LRSD , NLRSD, and the PCSSD (known thereafter as the \"Joshua Intervenors \" ). 3 . . On April 24, 1987, the LRSD moved for the recusal of Judge Woods pursuant to 28 U.S . C. 455a . Judge Woods denied this motion on April 30, 1987 (see 660 F . Supp. at 624). 4 . On April 30, 1987, Judge Woods also denied the Joshua Intervenors' motion for recusal based upon 28 U.S . C. 455(b) (2). See 660 F. Supp. At 636-37. 5. Employing the procedural device of a writ of mandamus, the LRSD on August 24, 1987 sought appellate review of Judge Woods' denial of its  recusal motion . The Jo.shua Intervenors pursued - appellate review of the denial of their recusal motion in an appeal addressing several district court judgments and by supporting the LRSD petition. 6 . Then in private practice, his honor, William R. Wilson , Jr . , was retained by Judge Woods to ~epresent the judge in the Court of Appeals with regard to the mandamus petition . See Attachment A. In representing Judge Woods, h.is honor served as a lawyer in this case. See Order Denying Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U. S . C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, Oct . 29, 2002, at 2 ( \" I entered the case, at that time , fo:r: the limited purpose of representing Judge Woods before t he Eigh t h Circuit i n connection with the request that he be disqualified . 11 [ emphasis added]) 2 7. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has construed 28 U.S.C. 455(b) (2) to require recusal of a judge in a case in which he or she served as a lawyer while in private practice. In construing 455(b) (2), this court has erred by limiting its focus to language in which the Court of Appeals considered whether (b) (2) might have an even broader scope, deciding that his honor's -involvement in 1987 did not fall within that possible additional prohibition. 8. A district judge has an independent responsibility to consider the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 455(b) (2). Upon receiving reassignment of this case, this court did not orally or in writing raise with the parties or rule upon the applicability of Section 455, in the light of his honor's earlier \"appearance in the .case\" - as a lawyer. Order, Oct . 29, 2002, at 4. 9 . Robert Pressman first learned of his honor's earlier role as a lawyer in this case on October 18, 2002 , while doing research on the matter of recusal; this research was prompted by Mr. Pressman's learning of the court's employment of Ms. Janet Pulliam as a law clerk. On October 22, 2 002, when reporting on this research to John W. Walker, Mr. Pressman also mentioned his rionor's earlier role in this case. Mr. Walker had forgotten the matter. See Declaration of Ropert Pressman (Attachment B) and Affidavit of John W. Walker (Attachment C)to this Motion. Attorney Rickey Hicks was not aware of his honor's earlier service until late October, 2002 (Attachment D) . The motion has been filed within a reasonable period ~fter the foregoing events. 3 10. In the 14-year period from the time that hi$ honor served as a lawyer in this case (November 6, 1987)until the reassignment of this case to his honor (January 3, 2002): (a) the Court of Appeals entered at least 13 published opinions in this case1 and the district court at least 5; 2 (b) the district court clerk's office docketed thousands of pleadings and other items in this case [see also Memorandum Opinion of September 13, 2002, at 9 n. 15 [-The pleadings in this case alone now occupy hundreds of feet of file space in the clerk ' s office. ' J (c) Judge Wright received approximately 743 exhibits; (d) the Office of Desegregation Monitorin~ submitted at least 49 written reports; ( e) Joshua Intervenors' lead counsel, John W. Walker, r~presented clients in many hundreds of other cases and discussed civil rights and other legal issues with thousands of persons who contacted his office. 11 . Implementation of 28 U.S . C. 455 requires that the court recuse . 12. In the circumstances of this case, governing legal standards require that the court vacate all orders , rulings and judgments entered s ubsequent to the court ' s receiving reassignment These decisions are 92 1 F . 2d 1371; 928 F . 2d 248; 949 F . 2d 253; 971 F . 2d 160 ; 17 F . 3d 260; 56 F. 3d 904; 60 F . 3d 435; 83 F . 3d 1014; 109 F . 3d 514; 112 F . 3d 953 ; 127 F . 3d 693; 131 F. 3d 1255; and 148 F . 3d 956 . 2 These decisions are 716 F. Supp. 1162; 726 F . Supp. 1544 ; 769 F . Supp . 1483 ; 769 F. Supp . 1491; a nd 778 F . Supp 1013! 4 . . , J - of the matter. Rule 60(b) (6) provides a vehicle for accomplishing this action. 13. The circumstances referred to in paragraph 12 include the following: (a) After the time that his honor represente' d Judge Woods in. . this case, Judge Woods expressed negative views on the fees for attorneys in the case, particularly the Joshua Intervenors. See 726 F. Supp. At 1554-56; 740 F. Supp at 634, 635; Judge Henry Woods and Beth Deere, 'Reflections on the Little Rock School Case 11 44 Ark. L. Rev. 971, 998, 1000, 1005-06 (1991). (b) In the opinion of September 13, 2002, this court drew upon (at 43) and built upon (at 38-44) Judge Woods' conclusion about attorneys ' fees, al though recognizing that the matter was ,'not - directly relevant to the issue of unitary status ... ' 1(at 40). (c) A neutral observer could reasonably construe this court's conclusions about attorneys fees pa.id to Joshua Intervenors to be that: the fees paid were excessive; the fees paid diminished the educational opportunities of the student .members of the intervening class; additional fees were sought when they should not have been; and additional fees were paid in exchange for an agreement to support the revised plan. (d) It is reasonable to conclude that Judge Woods' views about attorneys' fees in this case had a greater influence on this court, after receiving assignment of this case, . because his honor had earlier assumed an advocacy role for Judge Woods by representing him in this case. 5 r  (e) The Joshua Intervenors' evidentiary presentation in the July, 2 002 hearing was made principaly by lead counsel . John W. Walker. As of this time (or at least by the time of the release of the Memorandum Opinion), this court held negative views about Mr. Walker's earlier role in this case. See sub-paragraph (c). These vi~ws were linked to this court's earlier role as a lawyer in this case. See subparagraph (d). It was unfair and inappropriate for Intervenors' evidentiary presentation to be evaluat~d under this cloud. (f) On appeal,  this court's factual findings will be reviewed under the ~'clearly erroneous'' standard, not de nova. (g) The court's decision in this case is marked by fealty and deference to Judge Henry Woods, the individual whose positions this - court was obligated to champion, when serving as an attorney in this case. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that this court recuse from this case after vacating all orders, rulings and judgments, entered subsequent to the reassignment of this case to this court, including the Memorandum Opinion and judgment of September 13, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors further pray that this court refer this case to the chief judge for reassignment and grant such other and further relief as the needs of justic~ may require.- Respectfully subrr ted, Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862 - 1955 . 6 \\ ,' / ,)! .v?v/L /.{ I J n W. Wa!ker J[ n W. Walker, 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR / D~[ /IY. ~ /(JVg-1 P.A. 72206 Mass. 405900 /,J / . ~ f/   ,, i 'f---iL-zA~ I Lk/4 Rlcky .  ks Attorn ~y at Law 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663.-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been forwarded to all ~ounsel of record via United States mail, postage prepaid on this ~?--day of November, 2002. 7 !.A.=:l qD91'tG7\"TmRllSIXUT 'P. 0. IKll:11 urn.E:ROCK, AlllC.L'if54.S ,-2,.'\u0026gt;0;! Wl\u0026gt;C. ~ W!l$.ON,Jlll. t ~l'IID!=l\u0026gt;\u0026lt;-t aitOltANNllT. \"1II..'l0N c;.L'll/l).i;;Qllt.'1,( TJMar= O. lllml.2Y SQ1J!1S-\u0026amp;i~ September 8, 1987 RE: L~ttle Rock School Dist . . Petitioner, v. Honorabie Henry Woods, Respondent Eighth Circuit No. 87-2150 Mr- Robert D. St . Vrain Eighth CiJ:'cuit Clerk 511 U\".S. Court and Custom House 1114 Marke~ Street S~. Lou~s, Missouri 63101 Dear ~..r. Sc. Vrain: F. l L E D ----;J SP S 1987~ ROa.ERT D. ST. VRAiN. CLERK tl\u0026gt;LfJOADldtT'Tl!ll.0 ?!UC'TICZ l:'J AL..o.S~ EXPRESS MAIL I have just been retained by The Honorable Henry i.7oods to represent him in the referenced matter_ I.: is my understanding that our . response is due in the Eighth Circuit on or before . Septemb~r 14, 1987. If this is not correct, I would appreciate it if you .would advise me for'thwith. I understand, also, that this letter will suic:e as my \"entry of appearance.\" Again, if this is net: correct, please let me, know as soon 2.s pos.sible. Thank you very much for your consideration_ Cordially, fJ/t~ Wm_ R_ Wilson, Jr. WRWJr:skm. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 Declaration of Robert Pressman Robert Pressman declares as follows: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have undertaken various assignments in this case, at the request of John W. Walker, since the latter part of 1995. 2. On October 15, 2002, d~ring a telephone conversation, John W. Walker i11-formed me of this court's .employment of Ms. Janet Pulliam as a law clerk. He further stated that she had been one of the attorneys for the Little Rock School District in the first phase of this civil action. We discussed my doing research about recusal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455, in view of Ms. Pulliam's present and former roles. 3. I then did research at the law library of the New England School of Law in Boston on October 18, 2002. During the course of that work, I noticed in the United States Code Annotated a note on the decision in this case published at 833 F.2d 112. Upon opening 1 that volume to the two-page decision, I noted: William R. Wilsqn, Jr.; Little Rock, Ark. for Judge Woods in mandamus. This entry provided my first knowledge of his honor's involvement in this case while in private practice. 4. On October 22, 2002, I discussed the results of my research on Section 455 in the context of law clerks with Mr. Walker by telephone. I also mentioned the opinion showing his honor's representing Judge Woods on the mandamus issue in this case. At this point, Mr. Walker did not say directly or indirectly that he remembered this fact prior to my mentioning it. 5. A circumstance convinces me that Mr. Walker would have raised the matter of his honor's earlier role in this case had he remembered it. Prior to the July 2002 hearing, Mr. Walker and I had multiple conversations about _our prospects for success on the issues tried before Judge Wright and the is?ues to be tried before his honor. We both voiced pessimism, based upon our perceptions of his honor's record in civil rights  cases. In this light, my conclusion is that Mr. Walker would have at least raised for discussion on these occasions before the July 2002 hearing the matter of seeking recusal, if he had recalled his honor's earlier appearance in this case as counsel. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are truthful and complete. Date Robert Pressman 2 IN THE UNITED .STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL: DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE vv. KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER ~omes now the affiant who states as follows: 1. 2. I did not remember His Honor's appearance in this case in 1987 until some time in October 2002, when Bob Pressman mentioned it to me. Earlier in October 2002, I learned of the Court's employing Ms. Janet Pullium as a lawyer. I discussed this and its possible relatiQnship to recusal on separate occasions with Mr. Pressman and with Mr. Rickey Hicks as well as Ms. Joy Springer of my office. That discussion included no mention of His Honor's e:....rlier role in the case. 3. After the reassignment of this case to this Court, Mr. Pressman and I had several conversations about our prospects. We both had negative outlooks because of our view of the Court's decisions while on the bench. 4. There were other lawyers associated with this case who I did not remember until that memory was refreshed by my review of the pleadings and the decisions in this ATTACHMENTC case after the October 2002 conversations with Mr. Pressman, Mr. Hicks and Ms. Springer. 5. In the period from the time that His Honor represented Judge Woods in 1987 until this case was reassigned to His Honor, my law practice was very active. When.it was assigned to His Honor on January 3, 2002, I was preparing for major surgery. 11 Between 1987 and October 2002, I have represented clients in many htmdreds of other cases and have discussed civil rights and other issues with thousands of persons who contacted my office. . ? Affiant saith nothing fmiher. I COUNTY OF LL/\\ \"'16!~) ) STATE OR ARKANSAS) '): t\u0026amp; Sworn and appeared before me this d '(day of November. 2002. My Commission Expires: 9 \\ t 7; 200:2;; I i  ) ) \"-- 1 _,.. (Lo- _ 1 ) 11.--1-- ; r: / 171'\\( ) n f t . .{, ~ ( JJof.. ,,t( Notary 1fublic ATTACHMENTC IN THE lJNITED STATES DI~TRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL \"DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 AFFIDAVIT OF RICKEY HICKS Rickey Hicks states as follows: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORs  1. I began to _assist John W. Walker i1_1 the representation of the Joshua Intervenors on or about November 19, 2001. 2. In the latter part of October, 2002, John W. Walker and Robert Pressman discussed with me the fact that the court (Honorable William R. Wilson) had served as counsel in this case by representing Judge Henry Woods on a mandamus issue in 1987. This was the first time I heard or received any information about his honor's earlier service in this case. Affiant saith nothing further. coumY oF lno ILL ' STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) ) Sworn and appeared before me this J.J-day ofNovember, 2002. :. n /t1J1t,,r ;J_/(/I My Commission Expires: 1\" / /7/ZI uu3 r I r:A_u_/:(LE 0 ~ I ERN o,sf~(CT COURT  \"'CT ARKAiiiSAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nov 2 5 200') EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASJAM   WESTERN DIVISION By ES w. MccoRMA.  ---- CK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4: 82CV00866, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL -DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET . AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 2 6 2002  OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORIHG The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS Support of their Motion for the Vacating of Orders and Recusal This court has acknowledged that in 1987, while in private - practice, his honor appeared in this case as a lawyer. 1 Based upon the inter~retation of 28 U.S.C. 455(b) (2) by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, that circumstance disqualified his honor from serving later as a judge in this case. In the light of relevant facts and legal standards, the court should now recuse, after vacati_ng all orders, ruling~ and judgments entered since i receiving this case by reassignmeni. A. Under Eighth Circuit Decisions, A Judge Must Recuse When Assigned a Case In which He Earlier Served as a Lawyer The Joshua Intervenors read Eighth Circuit decisions as 1 See Order Denying Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 u.s.c. Sec. 455 to the Present Proceedings, Oct. 2~~ 2002, at 2 (\"I entered the case, at that time, .. \"); at 3 (\" ... my appearance fifteen years 'ago ... \"); at 4 (\" ... my appearance in the case ... \"). 1 interpreting 2.8 U.S.C.455(b) (2) to mandate recusal when a judge is assigned a case in which he earlier served as a lawyer. 2 The text on which intervenors rely is as follows. The trial of this case on the merits actually was delayed three years by various intervening motions, most of which are not relevant here. For example, motions for class cert if- ' i' ication and for consolidation with the Clark litigation concerning desegregation of the Little Rock School District (see Little Rock School Dist. No. 1, 584 F.Supp. 328, 334-35 (E.D.Ark. 1984), were denied, and those rulings are not challenged on appeal. Patterson does challenge the refusal of Judge Woods to recuse himself, arguing that recusal was required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b) (2) because Judge Woods' former law partner, during the time he was associated with the firm, represented parties that sought to intervene in and eventually participated as amicus curiae in the Clark litigation. We agree with Judge Woods that it follows from the denial of the consolidation motion that the  matter in controversy' here cannot be the same as in Clark and that the statutory language on recusal relied on by Patterson thus does not apply. Patterson v. Masem, 774 F.2d 251, 254 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added) We have previously held, in an appeal involving the same judge and the same connection with Clark, that where the trial court denies consolidation of a related case which might have provided a basis for recusal, 11  it follows ... that the  matter in controversy' here cannot be the same ... and that the statutory language on recusal . ... thus does not apply.\" Patterson v. Masem, 774 F.2d 251, 254 n. 2 (8thcir. 1985). Patterson involved an individual racial discrimination suit by an employee of LRSD, and the Joshua Intervenors urge us to distinguish Patterson on the ground that this case is intertwined with Clark in a way that Patterson was not. Under the Joshua Intervenors' interpretation, the matter in controversy' contemplated by the recusal statute may extend beyond the litigation conducted under the same docket number where the issues in the dispute are sufficiently related. Since this case inevitably involves consideration of desegregation within the LRSD  -- the focus of the Clark 2 . Sec. 455 (b) (2) reads in pertinent part: \"He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances ... (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy .... 11 2 litigation -- the Joshua Intervenors conclude that 455(b) (2) requires recusal. Even if we accept appellants' argument that different cases may constitute . the same matter in controversy, ' an interpretation apparently precluded by Patterson, .the question of what kinds of cases are sufficiently related for the purposes of Sec. 455 (b) (2) would remain a question of judgment . r  and degree. We cannot say that the trial judge I s former law t' partner's submission of an amicus. brief in a case involving, to a large extent, different issues and different remedies two decades ago ~equires recusal under Sec. 455(b) (2), nor do we believe that Congress intended such a result. LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1301-02 (8 th Cir. 1988) .... To determine whether 455(b) requires recusal in this case, I must decide whether the claims filed by Alaska fishermen in Apex's bankruptcy proceeding .as a result of the oil spill are the same  matter in controversy' as Artoc' s disputed claim for payment of the assigned invoices. We have previously noted that, if different cases may ever constitute the same matter in controversy for purposes of Sec. 455(b) (2), it is only when  the issues in dispute are sufficiently related. 1 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 839 F.2d 1296, 1302 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 ... (1988). In Re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302, 303-04 (8th cir. 1992) ( individual opinion of Judge Loken denying motion for disqualification) These three decisions c;::oncerning 455 (b) (2) touch upon two  ' situations. The first is where the earlier service as a . lawyer was in the same case to which the judge is later assigned. The second instance is where the earlier service as a lawyer was in a different case than the judge's current assignment, but, it is argued, the separate cases or issues are so closely related to the current assigned case that recusal is also required by Section 455 (b) (2). As to the first situation, Intervenor's interpretation of the 3 Eighth Circuit language is that the judge must recuse, if he\\she or a partner earlier served as a lawyer in the same case. As to the second situation, Intervenors' interpretation is that the Eighth Circuit has not made a . holding identifying a sufficient relationship, but has left open  the possibility that such a tl situation requiring Section 455(b) (2) recusal might exist. Intervenors' position regarding the Eighth Circuit standard finds support in United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 222533, (E.D. La.), at 8-9, relied upon by this court in its Order of October 29, - 2002, at 3-4. That court identified the Eighth Circuit rule as follows (emphasis added]: The court notes that the one circuit to have addressed the issue explicitly has read the  matter in controversy' requirement of Section 455(b) (2) narrowly. In Patterson v. Masem, 774 F.2d 251, 254 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1985) and Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. i, 839 F.2d 1296, 1301 (8thCir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 (i988), the Eighth circuit rejected the argument that \"the  matter in controversy' contemplated by the recusal statute may extend beyond the litigation conducted under the same docket number where the issues in dispute are sufficiently related.\" Little Rock School District, 839 F.2d at 1302. Thus, under Eighth Circuit law, the  matter in controversy' requirement is triggered only if the judge or his or her former partner worked on the case over which the judge is presently presiding.  In both Patterson and Little Rock  School District, the Court held that a judge was not required: to disqualify himself pursuant to Section 455(b) (2) when his former law partners had filed amicus curiae briefs in a case that helped 'form part of the historical background of the dispute' before the Court. Little Rock School District, 839 F.2d at 1301. In private practice, his honor had \"worked on the case\" reassigned to him upon Judge Wright's withdrawal. Recusal was 4 mandated under the Eighth Circuit's bright line rule. 3 Intervenors respectfully submit that this court erred in its ' application of 455(b) (2) in its October 29, 2002 Order. The court ignored the bright line rule; rather, its focus was on the appellate court's discussion of whether 455(b) (2) was even broader, ,, reaching some situations in which there was an overlap between different cases. The court ruled that its earlier involvement here did not fall  within the parameters of this \"standard. 11 This incomplete analysis yielded a faulty overall 'conclusion. The nature of school desegregation cases shows a problem with approaching the matter in terms of whether tha earlier service as counsel in the case involved \"any of the issues (now] pending before (the judge] \"Order, Oct. 29, 2002, at 4. This species of litigation may involve six \"Green factors, \" or even more elements, where, as here, the  parties' settlement is more expansive. The court's language might be interpreted to suggest that one could be an advocate in a case in private practice on some such issues, yet be able to later serve as a judge in the same case on others. Respectfully, \"we [do not] believe that Congress intended such a result.\" Little Rock School District, 839 F.2d at 1302. Finally, legislative history supports the interpretation of 455 (b) (2), adopted by the Eighth Circuit and urged here by 3 United states v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 1998), a criminal prosecution, cited in the October 29 Order at 3, was not a case in which the judge while in private practice, or a partner, had made an appearance in the current prosecution. 5 intervenors. Prior to 1974, 455 consisted of a single paragraph. In April 1973, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted for federal judges the American Bar Association's Code of Judicial Conduct. This code was ' more rigorous than Section 455. The 1974 revisions to 455 largely conformed the statute to the ABA Code ,, relating to judicial disqualification. The legislation did add 455 (b) (3) to deal explicitly with the issue of an individual coming to the bench from service as a government lawyer. The Senate and House reports contain this exp~~nation . ... subsection (b) (3) carries forward from subsection (b) (2) a required disqualification where the judge as a government lawyer, had acted as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding. In addition, the judge must disqualify himself where, as a  government lawyer, he had expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy ... See 197 4 U.S. Cong. Code \u0026amp; Adm in. News, 6351-56. B. His Honor Served in this Case as a Lawyer by Representing Judge Woods in the Court of Appeals in 1987 His honor has, as noted, acknowledged his service as a lawyer in this case while in private practice. See supra at n. 1. The I LRSD, however, seemin~ly suggests: that the petition for a writ of mandamus involved a different case -- by the repetitive use of the phrase \"the mandamus action.\" See LRSD Memorandum Brief, Oct. 30, 2002, at 3-5; see also at 4 (\"the mandamus case\"). Any such contention is without merit. The \"Petition for Writ of Mandamus\" employed here in 1987 was not a separate civil action or case, but instead a procedural mechanism used to bring an issue in the underlying litigation, this case, to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for review. 6 In Re Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 85 F. 3d 1353, 1355 (8th Cir. 1996) (petition for writ of mandamus seeking disqualification of district judge; court refers to \"basic underlying suit\" and the \"underlying suit\"; at 1355 and inn. 2); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d. 74, 76-77 (3rdCir . . 1996) (\"A writ of ,, mandamus, which is authorized by the All Writs Act, 28 u.s.c. Sec . 1651, . constitutes a procedural mechanism through which a court of appeals reviews a carefully circumscribed and discrete category of district court orders. 11 [footnotes and citations omitted]); United States v. Martin, 96 F.3d 853, 854 (7thCir. 1996) (\"When as is normally the case in the federaL courts mandamus is being sought against the judge presiding in the petitioner's case, - it is realistically a form of interlocutory appeal .... 11 ; \"It is a procedural step in the criminal litigation, like an interlocutory or final appeal or a civil contempt proceeding against a witness.\"); Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415, 417 (l0thCir. 1996) (\"A mandamus proceeding under section 1651, although characterized as an original proceeding, is not an independent grant of  ' jurisdiction, but an aid of appe,llate jurisdiction. 16 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 3932 (1977) (quotation omitted). As such, mandamus is part of the litigation of a case . \" ) . 4 In the 'Petition for Writ of Mandamus,' August 24, 1987, the LRSD recognized that the mandamus approach was a part of a single underlying case. At 5 ( ' seeking writ of mandamus directing Judge Woods '' to recuse himself from presiding over these proceedings . . . '' ( emphasis added) ; The LRSD supporting brief stated: '' This Petition seeks to have the Honorable Henry Woods disqualified from presiding over this scho~l desegregation case.\" 7 c. The Motion for Recusal Should Not Be Rejected as Untimely The motion should not, for two reasons, be denied as untimely. 1. The Court Had an Independent Obligation to Address the Matter of Recusal 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and (b) identify various situations in which a judge \"shall disqualify himself [or herself] .... 11 Unlike 28 U.S.C. 144, 455 is, not conditioned on a party's raising an issue of bias. Rather, in keeping with its text, Section 455 has been characterized as \"self-enforcing on the part of the judge.\" Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 517 F.2d 1044, .. .  . . 1052 (5th Cir. 1975). \"[I]f the judge sitting on a case is aware of grounds for recusal under Section 455, that judge has a duty to recuse him~elf or herself.\" United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9thCir. 1980). See also Roberts v . Bailar, 625 F.2d 125, 128 (6th Cir. 1980) (same); United States v. Davidson, 482 F.Supp. 8.27, 829 (W.D. Okla. 1979) (\"self-enforcing on the part of the judge\"); Bradley v. Milliken, 426 F.Supp. 929, 931 (E.D.Mich. 1977) ( 11 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 . places the issue of disqualification squarely upon the presiding judge.\") In fulfilling its \"duty,\" the court could have raised the matter here by describing his honor's prior-involvement in the case orally, or in writing, or by addressing it in an opinion. 5 In (at VII). See Attachment to this Memorandum. 5 Little Rock School District v. Arkansas Bd. of Educ., 902 F.2d 1289 (8thCir. 1990) (opinion by Judge Richard Arnold on whether he should recuse on several appeals); In Re National Union Fire Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1226, 1231 (7thCir. 1988) (\"The best practice is to disclose the details that the judge deems significant, to make a decision by one's own lights, and let 8 either case, the Joshua Intervenors would have been on notice of the matter and had the opportunity to address it, in the latter instance by seeking reconsideration (if the court had declined to recuse). The court did not, however, openly address the matter. 6 Intervenors' motion of October 25, 2002, sought a hearing on the recusal issue. Given the earlier silence on the matter, the motion asked that the court indicate whether upon assignment of the case his honor had considered his earlier role and, if so, the basis for his conclusion that 455(b) (2) did not require recusal. This did not seek an advisory opinion as later argued_ by LRSD, but instead the court's ruling or opinion on a matter it had a \"duty\" to address, the statute being self-executing. The court chose not to respond to these questions directly in its October 29 ruling. Nevertheless, it is our supposition from the content and the tone of that Order and the Order of November 12, 2002, that the court did recall its earlier service in this case as a lawyer, upon receiving this case by reassignment. On this supposition, which we do not, ;for multiple reasons, assert to be \"a lead pipe certainty,\" the failure of Joshua Intervenors to  raise the issue before the July hearing was the product, we respectfully counsel speak or keep silence as they will.\"); Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 867 F.2d 1415, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (district judge made prompt oral disclosure of facts and her decision that she need not recuse). 6 The ''Commentary\" to Canon 3(E) (1) of the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct provides: ' A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the que-stion of disqualification, even if the judge believes there 1s no real basis for dis~ alification.' 9 submit, of the court's silence, despite the self-executing nature of Section 455. 7 2. There Was Other Good Cause for Delay in Raising the Issue Joshua Intervenors did not raise the recusal issue before the July 2002 hearing. However, there is \"good cause\" for failing to - file at an earlier time. Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348, 1355 (8 t h Cir. 1992). Mr. Pressman and Mr. Hicks were not aware of the court's earlier role in this case until the latter part of October 2002. Mr. Walker had forgotten the matter; his memory was refreshed by Mr. Pressman's inquiry on October 22, 2002. 8 Objective bases render entirely reasonable Mr. Walker's sworn statement that he had - forgotten the court's earlier role. There was_ a tremendous level of activity in this case in the 14 year period between his honor's participation in the case in private practice and its reassignment to him in January 2002. Moreover, this activity was but one part of Mr. Walker's extensive practice. Furthermore, because Mr. Walker and Mr. Pressman were openly ;pessimistic about the prospects for success in his honor's court in their discussions before the July. 2002 hearing (see Pressman Declaration), it is unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Walker would not have at least raised the 7 Mr. Pressman was not aware of the court's prior role until stumbling upon this fact on October 18, 2002; and Mr. Walker did not recall it, until Mr. Pressman mentioned the point on October 22, 2002. See declaration and affidavit attached to the current motion. Mr. Hicks was unaware of this point until late October, 2002. Affidavit attached to motion.  8 See affidavits and .declaration attached to motion. 10 - possibility of seeking recusal for discussion, had he remembered his honor's earlier role in this case. See Motion, para. 10; Pressman Declaration, para. 5; Walker Aff., paras D. Prior to Recusing, th' e Court Should Vacate Orders, Rulings and Judgments Entered Since Receiving Assignment of the Case In Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 862-64 (1988), the Supreme Court addresses the question of remedies ~ where recusal is required. Although 455 defines the circumstances that mandate disqualification of federal judges, it neither prescribes nor prohibits any particular remedy for . a violation of that duty. Congress has wisely delegated to 'the judiciary the task of fashioning the remedies that will best serve the purpose of the legislation ... [~t 862] 455 does not, on its own, authorize the reopening of closed litigation. However, as respondent and the Court of Appeals recognized, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides a procedure whereby, in appropriate cases, a party may be relieved of a final judgment ... (at 863,footnote omitted) ..... we conclude that in determining whether a judgment should be vacated for a violation of 455(a), it is appropriate to consider the risk of injustice to the parties in the particular case, the ri~k that the denial of relief will produce injus~ice in other cases, and. the risk of undermining the publ_ic' s confidence . in the judicial process ... [at 864] Intervenors respectfully su}:)mit that application of these standards warrants vacating of all orders, rulings, and judgments subsequent to the reassignment of this case to his honor. Joshua Intervenors rely upon the factor of ~injustice to [a party} in the particular case,'' namely, these intervenors. Where, as here, a party appeals a district court judgment, the 11 factor of : injustice r: (or prejudice) to a party may depend upon the issue(s) which will be the subject of the appeal. If the appeal challenges the granting or denying of a motion for summary judgment, for example, the appellate court can likely address an ,'injustice, '1 the matter being subject to de novo review. Parker v. Connors Steel Company, _855 F.2d 1510, 1526 (11th Cir. 1988); In Re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F. 2d 764, 786,787 (3 r d Cir. 1992). In contrast, matters subject to only \"'deferential review\" on appeal _ are \"more problematic. 11 In Re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F. 2d at 787. The court's memorandum opinion of September 13, 2002 contains many pages of factual findings. While the appeal is at an early stage, it appears to Intervenors' counsel that it will involve a __ challenge to the correctness of some of the court's findings of fact, both those which are more specific and those which are summary in -nature. ( These contentions would be subject to \"' deferential review '1 ( In Re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F. 2d 764, 787 (1992) .:. - the \"' clearly erroneous 11 standard. Lead counsel John W. Walker presented the vast bulk of intervenors evidence _before his : honor. This court viewed him through a particulai lens; it was an unfavorable image due to the court's perception of his role regarding attorney's fees. Moreover, it was a perception rooted in his honor's's earlier representation EXAMPLES: at 94(#22), at 100(#12), at 101 (#15,#16), at 102(#19), at 104 (#22), at 107(#27), at 108 (#28), at 126(#10), at 128(#13, at 129(#16), at 133(#24), at 143(#9), at 149(#19)~ 12 of Judge Woods, in this case, while in private. 10 This situation causes ~-injustice\" (Liljeberg) because findings of fact will be subject to only _a limited review on appeal. To be sure, Judge Woods and his honor criticized all attorneys regarding fees; however, the matter is of greater concern at  this stage for intervenors, as they had the burden of proof on the matter of compliance with the revised plan. Mem. Opinion, at 74. In this setting, the appropriate remedy is the vacating of all orders, rulings and judgments entered after reassignment of this case to his honor. Compare Preston v. United States, 923 F. 2d . 731, 734-36 (9 th Cir. 1991) (vacating judgment and remanding for ~retrial by a different judge~). Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 Respectfully submitted, J n 4):Shn W. Walker, 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046  ,,..,_ ____ r.,::_--1'-I\u0026gt;-'\"\"-._.\u0026lt;..-;_ Rickey: icks Attar ey at Law 1100 orth University-, Suite 240 Little Rock; AR 72207 501-663-9900 P.A. 72206 10 This paragraph relies on the facts set forth in the motion, para. 13. 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum has been forwarded to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this \"\"]:'.2 day of November, 2002. 14 . I ~\\\\ i ~Ji i!i! i!1I{ _,~ .; :~ -. r -~,;,-~. .... : }, -.: :;.: t\\i [;~~[ j ~t}:i :/( ,.,::. :.\u0026gt;r:,~,t;.;itT'.~~:,c:::;;; :\u0026gt;\u0026gt;,\u0026gt;,\u0026lt;~-)-t:,,, ~-...... : ,. . . : : -: ;, . -~ .,.:..  --. ! : ,- : .  ~-.:~)f -4;_/ ., ;,::/-- n I g tJ  IN TBE UNITED STATE$ COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK. SCHOOL PIS'I'RIC'r APPELLEE vs. POLASKI . COUNTY SPECIAL SCSCiOL scaoot DISTRICT .NO, 1, et.. al. APPELLANTS) ) ) MRS . LORENE JOSHUA'  et. al. . ) ) INT\u0026amp;~VENORS) IN RE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER PET TT ION FOR WRI'.I' OF M.A.NDAJ.\\1US The above-named petition~r, the Little Rock School Di.strict , ~ ~ . herein applies for a writ of mandamus pursuant to Section 1651 of Title 28, United States Code (28 O.S.C. 1651) and Rule 211a) of tbe Fed~ra~ Rules of Appelfate Proced~re, ~ir~~t~d to. the ' !  Honorable Henry Woods, Jud~e of the United States District Court for th~ Eastern District of Arkansas, Wes~ern Division. In support cf this application~ tetitioner st~tes~ I. STATEMENT OF FACTS l. In July of 1986, petitioner submitted its faculty assignment plan for the Little Rock School District: to the district. court. (Pe~itioner's Exhibit parts cf r.~SD Pl~n J -1- II . STAT\u0026amp;~ENT  OF ISSUES PRESENTED 13. The petitioner filed its mot~on for the district . court to recuse . i tself on .P-_pri_l 22, 198 7 . The district court denied _ the motion on April 30 1 1987. pe-ti tion is whether the q.istrict court erre9 in fail lng to gr2.nt LR.SD' s moti-on .for recusal. tf ' :#\\j TII. REAS-ONS FOR GRANTING !(_EL TEF SOOGE'l' u  u f . -, ! r:- !1 .' 14. . The district court, by enga-g.ing in ex rerte communications, by commenting to the public and the press regarding the propriety of LRSD 1 s faculty assignment plan , by attempting to conduct its own discovery and consider evidence outside the record, and by sending letters and issuing orders stating that petition~r has violaied previous orders without hearing any evidence, has established the appearance of -impartiality in violation of ''28 O.S.C. 455(al and the Canons of -; Judicial Eihics, Canons l, 2: and 3 (A){4l . WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of mandamus be .issue.cl -by this cclirt directed to the Hono:rable Henry Woods, Judge cf the United St~tes District Court for the Eastern . I District of Arkans~s, West~rn :Division, to recuse himself , frorn presiding over these proceedings and for such further relief as tnis court des~s just ana proper. -5- - --------- _sT~I'.EMENT OF THE CASE The Proceedinqs Below This Petition seeks to have The Honorable Henry Woods disqu~lified from presiding over this school desegregation case. LRSD filed a Motion for the district court to Recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 45S(a), alleging that the district court had demonstrated the appearance of ~rejudice through his actions and extrajudicial comments in response to LRSD's faculty assignment plan. The district court denied LRSD's motion on April 30, 1987 . See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv s-oecia1 School District, No. LR-C_:_82-866 , (E.D . . Ark. April 30, 1987) (Order Denying Recusal} . Statement of Facts This protracted and complex school desegregation case ,,. began in 1982 when th_e LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors filed this action against the Pulaski County Special . School District ( \"PCSSD\" l and the North Little Rock Schoel District (\"NLRSD''l, claiming that ithey had failed in their i affirmative duty to desegregate their schools. Afte-e a long and complicated trial, the district court held that the PCSSD and NLRSD had indeed fallen short of their respective respor-sibilities to desegregate their schools and ' ordered that all three school districts be cqnsolidated. Liti:le vii lt\"Q . {!'4\" $J -i:: . sn.U:,-.,s,  01.s ~~ t;::D 1~-;:   Dis ; Hie:+- C(JuRr NO AR.ivwSA.s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJAMEs V 2 B 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: V\\! MccoR1, WESTERN DIVISION i-fACK, CLf:Rk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL .  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEC - 2 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR THE VACATING OF ORDERS AND RECUSAL The LRSD for its Response states: 1. Joshua's Motion should be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b). 2. The LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Response is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be denied; that the LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that the LRSD be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. F \\HOME\\FENOLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\umtary-rcsponse-mot-reclUc: wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FR1DA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501 - 11 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on November 26, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg.  200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F\\HOM.E\\FENDLEY\\LRSO 2001\\uniwy.response-mol-rccusc: wpd 3 - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - ----- -- ~#RG,(4,5D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT tsrR,cr~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Nov 2 6 \u0026amp;\\s WESTERN DIVISION JAME~ I, .. 2002 By .\\.. M\"r- ,, ,.., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT -~ ).E~~IFF LJ;,;1::-c~ V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL OEC .. 2. 2002 . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL  DEFENDANTS Orf\\Ct Of MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ltatll\\r',.~\\TlOM MOMllORl1l\u0026amp; JNTER VENO RS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JNTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR THE VACATING OF ORDERS AND RECUSAL Joshua's Motion should be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b). Each of these grounds for denial will be discussed in tum below. A. It is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Herny Woods over a decade ago. The Eighth Circuit has consistently held that motions to disqualify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. I  455(a) and (b) must be filed in a timely m~er. Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir.1992)( claims under 28 U.S.C.  455 must be made in a timely manner); Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Homestake Mining Co., 722 F.2d 1407; 1414 (8th Cir.1983) (\"Although 455 does not include an explicit time limitation, we believe that a timeliness requirement is appropriate., ... \"}; United States v. Bauer, 19 F.3d 409, 414 (8th Cir.1994) (\"This court has held that claims under 455 'will not be considered unless timely made.' \") (quoting Holloway). Parties are required to apply for recusal \"at the earliest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating the basis for such a claim,\" Apple v. Jewish Hosp. \u0026amp; Medical - Ctr., 829 F.2d 326, 333 (2nd Cir.1987), for two reasons: ( 1) a prompt application affords the district judge an opportunity to assess its merits, and (2) a prompt application avoids the risk that a party is holding back a recusal motion as a fall-back position in the face of an adverse ruling. See In re International Business Machines Corp., 45 F.3d 641,643 (2nd Cir.1995); accord In re Cargill, Inc., 66 F.3d 1256, 1262-63 (1st Cir.1995) (\"In the real world, recusal motions are sometimes driven more by litigation strategies than by ethical concerns.\"); Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 799 F.2d 1464, 1472 (11th Cir.1986) (\"Counsel, knowing the facts claimed to support a . 455(a) recusal for appearance of partiality may not lie in wait, raising the recusal issue only after learning the court's ruling on the merits.\"), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1016, 107 S.Ct. 1893, 95 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987). The latter concern is particularly relevant in a long-standing case such as this. In affirming Judge Woods' decision not to disqualify himself, Judge Richard Arnold wrote: At the outset, we note the irony that most of the major parties to this litigation have at some point sought the removal of the trial judge. Not surprisingly, the parties have generally discovered grounds for disqualification at approximately the same times    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\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\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1745","title":"Court filing concerning plaintiff's response to Joshua intervernor's request reconsideration and motion for new trial, Joshua intervernor's motion for relief concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for approval of middle school, other motions and memorandum attached.","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":["2002-10"],"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--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filing concerning plaintiff's response to Joshua intervernor's request reconsideration and motion for new trial, Joshua intervernor's motion for relief concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for approval of middle school, other motions and memorandum attached."],"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/1745"],"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 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\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\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' October 1, 2002, letter; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration and motion for new trial; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplement to motion; District Court, two orders; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' motion for relief concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' memorandum concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, motion for hearing regarding relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' motion to stay reduction of Office of Desegregation Management staff; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for hearing regarding the relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceeding; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for hearing regarding the relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceeding; District Court, order denying motion for hearing regarding relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * -PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * 4:82CV00866 u.fo1{k,~CQRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT O l 2002 JAME~~  l!:ly: ~ 2 - ,   . Defendants, * * RECEIVED MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., * lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * OCT - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Walker dated October 1, 2002. presume it should be treated as a motion of some kind. Accordingly other counsel of record may respond within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 1st day of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON GOCKET SHt'.:ET !N COMPLIANCE ~vv i1r.~i RMuLi::: 58 AND'C'R~ gr. RCF ,.,, ,,.., ,--.,(  ' - - - - - - v. ___ - 0 -- - - - - 6 8 0 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1 723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 3743758 FAX (501) 3744187 October 1, 2002 Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 I Re: Little Rock School v. Pulaski County School Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Judge Wilson: OCT - 2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EwuL: mchenryd@swbell.net On page 172 of your Order of September 13, 2002, you determine a compliance remedy with respect to the Joshua Intervenors, Section D. You also require the ODM to monitor LRSD's compliance with Section 2. 7.1. May I bring to your attention that the remedy being imposed is not preceded by any court order determining and defining the parameter of Joshua's monitoring. Those issues were not before the Court. The Court now determines that Joshua must monitor and must immediately bring to the LRSD 's attention all problems that are detected as the court has determined those problems to be. In doing so, the Court seems to impose a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I, therefore, would like to request that the Court define the nature of the monitoring that it expects ofJoshua, i.e. access to information by Little Rock, cost of production of such information, access to staff responsible for fulfilling the obligations (must this be done in writing with communication directed to LRSD counsel), and so forth. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua and the legal basis therefor in view of the fact that the remedy defined was not sought by LRSD or any party. I also note that LRSD is not required to inform Joshua of anything set forth on pages 170 through 1 72 except to provide a compliance report on or before March 15, 2004. I must also object to Court's imposing monitoring requirements upon Joshua that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM. The Court's comments indicate that it does not forsee or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit required. In this respect, we note that the Court created the ODM and expected the ODM to carefully monitor on a daily basis, full-time, the activities of the Little Rock Page 2- Letter to Judge Wilson October 1, 2002 and other school districts. By placing the responsibility that you appear to place on Joshua, unless clarification otherwise provides, the Court is shifting the required monitoring from the ODM to Joshua. We do not believe that to be fair or reasonable. Before your final order is entered, and becomes appealable, I respectfully request a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of ODM monitoring and Joshua monitoring may be fully developed. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall IN THE UN1TED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT - 8 .too2 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS OCTOBER 1, 2002 LETTER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS For its response to the Joshua Intervenors' (\"Joshua\") October 1, 2002 letter, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. For more than decade, Joshua has reported to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the District Court that it was engaged in the process of monitoring LRSD's compliance with LRSD's various desegregation obligations. At one oral argument, counsel for Joshua introduced a number of Joshua monitors to the panel of the Court of Appeals. 2. The 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan formalized a process for resolving any desegregation compliance problems which were discovered during the course of Joshua's monitoring. The obvious purpose of that process, which is found beginning at  8.2 of the Revised Plan, was to allow the quick resolution of any compliance issues for the benefit of both the - Joshua class members and the LRSD. 3. There is nothing on page 172 of the Court's September 13, 2002 Order which imposes upon the Joshua Intervenors any obligations which are not contained in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan or inherent in the class representatives' and class counsel's obligations to the class members. 4. The Court's September 13, 2002 Order followed weeks of litigation about issues which Joshua did not raise with the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. By requiring that Joshua and LRSD follow the \"process for raising compliance issues\" set forth in 8.2, et. film. of the Revised Plan, the Court is simply requiring the parties to abide by the terms of their own agreement. 5. TheLRSD can find in the Court's Order no basis for Joshua's argument that the Court has somehow imposed \"a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.\" The LRSD does not read the Court's Order as \"imposing\" any burden upon either Joshua or the ODM which did not exist for years prior to the Court's Order. 6. The Court should decline Joshua's request \"for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua.\" Nothing is required of Joshua that Joshua should not have been doing all along. The Court has simply let the parties know that in addition to 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, their agreement with respect to the resolution of compliance issues remains viable. The Court's Order continues a sensible and efficient system for resolving compliance issues and puts Joshua on notice that objections raised for the first time on April 15, 2004 which were not raised pursuant to the compliance process could be subject to an argument that those issues have been waived. 7. The Court should require that any future requests for relief submitted by Joshua should be placed in the form of a Motion and filed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's letter/motion of October 1, 2002 should be denied. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRJDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on October 7, 2002. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT - 8 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATIO.MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\") for its Response to Joshua Intervenor's (hereinafter \"Joshua\") Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial states: The LRSD will respond to each numbered paragraph of Joshua 's Motion for Reconsideration in tum. 1. The Court's use of the term \"supervision\" on page 2 its September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") was appropriate. It is common for a school district implementing a court ordered desegregation decree to be referred to as being under court \"supervision.\" See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S . 467, 471 (1992)(\"The DCSS has been subject to the supervision and jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia since 1969 . .. \" (emphasis supplied)). The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") acted under the authority of the Court to supervise the LRSD. 2. Evidence related to Joshua's failure to raise compliance issues during the term of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (hereinafter \"Revised Plan\") was relevant to the Board's good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Board 's estoppel defense. 3. The ODM works for the Court, and it is entirely appropriate for the Court to define its role and for the Court to take into account the LRSD's position with regard to ex parte contact between the Court and ODM. 4. Joshua cannot blame their failure to come forward with evidence on the Court's focus on \"brevity and substance.\" In any event, Joshua agreed to narrow the issues and the time limits imposed by the Court and cannot now be heard to complain. See Tr. Dec. 11 , 2001 , pp. 36-37. 5. The LRSD denies that footnote 15 on page 9 gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since 1982. The record is clear that Joshua intervened ' only after the LRSD prevailed in this case. While the 1989 Settlement Agreement did also resolve the Clark and Cooper cases, the Court is correct that this is a 20 year-old case. 6. The Court correctly noted that the claims for relief and remedies sought differ in the present case from Clark. Clark was simply a continuation of the Cooper case filed in 1956 asking that \"an injunction be issued against continued segregation of the races in the Little Rock public school system.\" Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 , 362 (8th Cir. 1957). The LRSD filed this case in 1982 seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts based on interdistrict constitutional violations by the other districts and the State of Arkansas. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The LRSD denies that either the late Honorable Henry Woods or Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon found that the LRSD continued to unlawfully discriminate against African-American students. 7. The LRSD denies that the information in footnote 47 on pages 26 and 27 is inaccurate. It is entirely appropriate for the Court to evaluate and comment on ODM's productivity. Nothing in the Court's opinion suggests that the Court has violated or intends to violate the Eighth Circuit's mandate. 8. The LRSD denies that the ODM has been in an \"advisory position to the LRSD\" since December 27, 1996. The ODM returned to its monitoring role at the conclusion of the 2 Revised Plan's transition period. See Revised Plan,  10. Nothing in the Court's opinion suggests that counsel for Joshua was to take over the ODM's monitoring responsibilities. Counsel for Joshua was obligated to monitor the LRSD based their ethical duty to their clients and their implied contractual duty to the LRSD. 9. The LRSD denies that the Court's discussion of Joshua's 1996 request for attorneys' fees indicates bias or hostility toward counsel for Joshua, implies collusion between the lawyers, suggests Judge Wright did not know the tenns of the settlement, complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties, suggests that Joshua's counsel agreed to assume the role of ODM, or holds counsel for Joshua to public contempt for being paid. As to counsel for Joshua's attempt to justify the monito.ring fees paid by the LRSD, the LRSD denies that counsel for Joshua attended \"hundreds of meetings\" with school District officials, that counsel for Joshua was ever \"threatened with arrest,\" and that the LRSD revised its policies because of counsels' \"persistence and vigor.\" The LRSD also denies the implication that - counsel for Joshua was responsible for the additional funding the three Pulaski County districts receive from the State by virtue of litigation related to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. While the discussion of professional fees is not directly related to the issues before the Court, the Court was free to include this discussion in its opinion. 10. The LRSD denies that the testimony ofDrs. Walberg and Armor was inapposite to the issues before this Court. Their testimony provides the context in which the LRSD and Joshua agreed to the Revised Plan and the basis on which the Court approved the Revised Plan, both of which are relevant to interpreting Revised Plan 2.7. 11 . The LRSD denies that there is no evidentiary basis for the Court's finding that ODM and Joshua did not object to the LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Bonnie Lesley testified to this fact (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001 , p. 287), and it is stated in the introduction to the LRSD's Final Compliance Report (CX 870, p. iv.). 3 12. The LRSD denies that the Court was required to share with the parties any criticisms it had of ODM's June 14, 2000, discipline report. The LRSD's Interim Compliance Report was admitted into evidence as CX 869. The LRSD denies that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection after the LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Linda Watson testified that ODM and Joshua were regularly provided copies of the District's Disciplinary Management Reports. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 83. 13. The Court is correct that Joshua failed to present any evidence that the LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement and school construction and closing. Joshua did not present any evidence on these issues:precisely because it abandoned those arguments. See Tr. Dec. 11, 2001 , pp. 36-37. Joshua cannot now be heard to complain that the Court did not allow Joshua to present evidence on those issues. 14. The Court found that Revised Plan  8.2 did not expressly require Joshua to raise compliance issues pursuant to the process set forth therein. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. Even so, evidence of Joshua's failure to raise compliance issues was relevant to the Board's good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Board's estoppel defense. The LRSD denies that there was \"much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators.\" 15. Footnote 2 of the Revised Plan is unambiguous, and the Court correctly interpreted the plain language of the footnote. The LRSD denies that Joshua introduced evidence \"that certain goals were to have been fully met while others would be ongoing.\" 16. The LRSD denies that the Court must presume \"that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts.\" The LRSD also denies that only conclusion to be drawn from any continuing racial disparity in achievement is that the beneficiaries of desegregation funding have been white students. Joshua's argument ignores the fact that the racial disparity in achievement exists when students arrive for their first day of 4 school. As Drs. Wal berg and Armor explained, it would be impossible for the LRSD to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement given the current racial disparity in socioeconomic status. 17. The LRSD denies that the Court improperly referred to the Green factors. The Revised Plan constituted an agreement voluntarily entered into by the LRSD. The LRSD entered into that agreement because it believed implementation of the Revised Plan was in the best interest of Afucan-American students, and indeed, all students in the District. 18. The Court is correct that in this case the LRSD has never been adjudicated a \"constitutional violator.\" The LRSD denies that it was held in contempt during the implementation of the 1990 settlement plan. 19. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2. 7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in achievement to establish the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan 2.7, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in achievement and the LRSD's alleged noncompliance. 20. The Court acknowledged that the Revised Plan did not expressly require Joshua to raise an issue pursuant to Revised Plan  8 before it could object to the LRSD's final report. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. 21. The LRSD will respond to each subparagraph of paragraph 21 in tum: (a) The Court drew a reasonable inference from the fact that Joshua failed to further pursue these issues and from Baker Kurrus's testimony that he asked Dr. Carnine to work with Joshua to resolve these issues. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 751. (b) Dr. Lacey so testified (Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 777), and no \"record of past actions\" is required for the Court to credit the testimony of a witness. ( c) Joshua points to nothing in the \"record\" which would indicate that the Court's characterization is erroneous. 5 (d) In fact, Junious Babbs testified that ODM and Joshua were provided copies of the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook.Court. See Tr. July 5, 2001, pp. 73, 77 and 78. Moreover, ODM's August 11 , 1999 report establishes that ODM received both. See pp. 39 and 40. Counsel's suggestion on cross-examination that Joshua did not receive them is not evidence. See Eight Circuit Model Jury Instructions (Civil) 1.02 (2001). Thus, the only evidence before the Court was testimony that ODM and Joshua did receive the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook. (e) The record in this case includes motions by the LRSD after Joshua filed its objections to stop counsel for Joshua from entering the offices of LRSD staff members unexpectedly and from using the Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA\") to conduct discovery. Joshua's opposition to these motions provides ample support in the record for the Court's finding. (f) The Revised Plan did not prohibit the LRSD from holding meetings without Joshua being present. Thus, there was no \"failure\" for the Court to excuse. (g) The Court correctly found that Revised Plan  2.5 did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. (h) The criticisms offered by the Court were readily apparent from the report itself, and Joshua cannot blame the Court for failing to put it on notice of these shortcomings. (i) The suspension index is a well-recognized statistic and has been explained in numerous desegregation cases. See, li, Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The Court was free to accept the LRSD's calculations which were admitted into evidence without objection. See CX 743 . (j) The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.5 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in discipline to establish the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  6 2.5, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in discipline and the LRSD's alleged noncompliance. (k) The Court correctly noted that not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against in the imposition of discipline. The LRSD fails to see how the Court's admonition not to present cumulative evidence prevented Joshua from calling any students to testify during the hearings on Revised Plan  2.5 . (I) The Court's description of Dr. Watson's testimony is accurate given the ' context in which the statement was made. (m) The fact that African-American teachers suspended African-American students more than white teachers is not \"a finding ofracial mistreatment by AfricanAmerican teachers toward African-American students.\" (n) The Court's statement that \"students of all races tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing and that they enjoy'' does not condone racial disparities in activities. ( o) The only inference to be drawn from testimony of Ray Gillespie is that the LRSD responded appropriately when confronted with allegations that white coaches mistreated African-American student athletes. (p) The Court did not accept a \"means\" test for participation in activities. The LRSD presented evidence of the steps it took to ensure that no student was denied participation in an activity due to a financial barrier, and Joshua came forward with no evidence that a single student was denied participation in an activity because of a financial barrier. ( q) The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in the percentage of students taking AP courses. The LRSD has worked hard to increase the number of African-American students in AP courses, and it has done 7 so. The LRSD's success cannot be diminished by Joshua characterizing the LRSD's efforts as \"minuscule.\" (r) The Court gave due weight to the testimony of Jason Mercer and Ramona Horton. (s) The Court did not accept a \"means\" test for participation in the University Studies Program at Hall High School. It is true that Dr. Lacey did not identify the race of the student for whom a private donation was sought so the student could participate in the University Studies Program. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 802. However, it was reasonable for the Court to infer that the student was African-American for two reasons. First, when counsel for Joshua began this series of questions, he limited the question to AfricanAmerican students. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 801. Second, there was evidence that African-American students were more likely to be poor, and therefore, to be excluded by financial barriers to activities. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 602 and 624. (t) (u) The Court gave due weight to Ms. Watson's testimony. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. (v) The Court may infer that counsel for Joshua read Revised Plan  2. 7 before agreeing to it, and therefore, knew what it required. (w) The Court is correct that Joshua did not raise the issue of the LRSD's March 19, 2001, agreement with the State of Arkansas in its Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status filed May 30, 2002. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion for Reconsideration; that Joshua's Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be denied; that the LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that the LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. 8 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\l..RSD 200 1\\unitary-rcsponsc-mot-rcconsider.wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRJDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37 -\"1LM-+---- 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on October 7, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\J-IOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001 \\uni1ary-rcsporuc-mot-rccoruidcr wpd 10 : - JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A't'TORNEY AT I.Aw 1723 l3RoADWAY Lrrru: RoCK, .AluWlsAS 7.2206 TE.t.EPRONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OFCOUNsEL ROBERT Mc~1.~ DONNAJ. M=t 8210 liENtll!RSON BaAn Ll1't1.P. Roel[, .AiKANSAS 72210 l'BONE: (601) 572-8426  FAX (501) 372,.8428 EMan.: mchen:ryd@nrbell.net Honorable William R.Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: Via Facsimile: 604-5149 October 9, 2002 Tius is a supplement to my letter motion of October 1,2002. I appreciate the Court treating it as a motion, although I did not so couch it, and I believe that the appropriate action taken by the Court in inviting the parties to react will be most useful. 1 believe that it is important for me to specify, however, what Joshua believes it would be appropriate for the Court to do with respect to clarifying the monitoring role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I am therefore asking that the Court conduct a hearing: ( a) to identify the instructions received by the Office of Desegregation. Monitoring (later referred as the ODM) regarding monitoring and reporting in reference to the LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status; (b) to consider whether the instructions received by the ODM were consistentmth the earlier identification ofODM's role as setfonh by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and ( c) to identify with greater particularity ODM' s monitoring and reporting role regarding the three school districts, If the Court is inclined to have me fonnalize my October 1, 2002 letter and today's letter in motion form, I will be happy to do so. I am also writing to observe that the Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration within the time allowed by law and that there has no response filed by either party within the rule time to our motion. Local Rule 7.2(b) requires that any party opposing our motion shall file such motion within eleven days. By my count, any opposing party should have filed its opposition not later th.an October 4, 2002. Today is obviously October 9, 2002. I am nor aware that the Court has a received a Motion to Extend the Time and I have not had a request from any counsel regarding an extension of such time. Page Two October 9, 2002 Accordmgly, we request that the Court role on the motion. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Brown i _-t.ttorne-; at Law 17ZJ Broadwcry Ltrrle Roa:; _4.J-!car..sr::s 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 .Fzc (501) 37-~ '.' 187 F/4,X TR.-4.L\"'iSlY.!ISSION CO\"y'ER SEEET Da:i2: [ To: [ Fa..-c: l __ 3. c-..\u0026lt;-2 ...... r- d)-.:-.LJ_c_JP __ __,1 Re: ,. l Sender: [_= =g,;===luY-==========; YOU SHOu2D R.ECE.TVE [_ _ (including cover sheer)] P.:!..GE(S), fl'ICLUDING l'F..JS CO VER. S,--:.r;;''f:T. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, P LE...:JSE CJ.LL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information coma.ineciin !his ~;mile meo:sage is atto:r-ey privilege:i and conficientfaJ. information intended only for the use of .b.e in.diviriual or en.rit-; nmned. above. If tile ruder of this m~sage is il.Ot tb.e intended recipient, or me ~ployee or agen, res-ponsibie to de.!iver it ro 1:le intended recipient, you sre b.ereoy .iotiiied ilint any cfuse:nination, di.'\"ll'founon or cop;1ing of cbis COIIlllluuication is stric:tiy prohiliii:ed. If you bave received. ihis commi'tni.c:icon in error, ple!:l!e immediate notify u.s by wlephoiie, md rerura the onginal messagi: .a J.l.:'J at the above address via .lie U.S. Postal s~:--lic:. Tilanic you. R CEIVED EAST~Rs~l~~e~~s s - CT 12 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 1 2002 AO 72A (Rev.8/82) OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. DES REGATION MONITORING By: __~ ~~~.,..,J... ..... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS On September 24, 2002, Joshua lntervenors (\"Joshua\") filed: (a) a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678), 1 which asks me to revisit many aspects of the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 3675) (\"Memorandum Opinion\") declaring the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to be unitary with regard to all aspects ofits operations under the Revised Plan (CX 871 ), except for 2.7.1; and (b) a Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order ( docket no. 3677). On October 7, 2002, LRSD filed a Response to Joshua Intervenors ' Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New 1On September 23, 2002, Joshua filed their first Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3676), which contained numerous errors. The next day, September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, which corrected most of those errors. I will consider this second motion as a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, although it was not so designated. As a matter of fact, a motion for reconsideration is not recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are, however, commonly filed and ruled upon in this jurisdiction--and I will hew to this custom. 3 6 8 4 AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Trial (docket no. 3682).2 After an initial review of Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial, I considered summarily denying both motions on the ground that each of the arguments in support of reconsideration or a new trial is without any apparent merit. I believe that my 17 4-page Memorandum Opinion fully and accurately sets forth the relevant history of this case and that my detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are amply supported by the record and controlling legal authority. In short, I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua believe I have erred, they should ~ppeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Thus, on the merits, Joshua's arguments raise nothing that warrants comment beyond my stating I find they are without any factual support or legal foundation. However, to the extent that a number of Joshua's arguments tend to torque the Memorandum Opinion out of shape, and are supported only by speculation and personal innuendo, I think it best to set the record straight. First, Joshua suggests that I improperly \"faulted\" Joshua for failing to present evidence 2Under Rule 7 .2(b) of the Local Rules, LRSD's Response to Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration was due eleven days from September 24, 2002, and its Response to Joshua's Motion for a New Trial was due eleven days from September 23, 2002. Because Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial were served on counsel for LRSD pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B) (mail) and (D) (electronic means), an additional three days must be added to LRSD's eleven days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Thus, LRSD had fourteen days to respond to those motions, making its Response to Joshua's Motion for New Trial due on or before October 7 and its Response to Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration due on or before October 8. As indicated previously, LRSD filed its Response to both those Motions on October 7. In a letter dated October 9, 2002, Joshua's counsel asked me to strike LRSD's Response to those two motions because it was not filed within eleven days. Because Joshua's counsel overlooked Fed. R. Civ. P. S(b) and 6( e ), they miscalculated the deadline for the filing of LRSD 's Response to be October 4. Therefore, their request to strike that Response is denied. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) on the March 19, 2001 Agreement between LRSD and the Arkansas Department of Education (CX 548). Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2. To the contrary, the Findings of Fact explicitly state that: The March 19, 2001 Agreement between the ADE and LRSD is unrelated to the question of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. It is important, too, that Joshua did not raise that issue as part ofits challenge to LRSD's request for an immediate declaration ofunitary status. Memorandum Opinion at 149, ,1 17 ( emphasis in original). Thus, although Joshua introduced CX 548 into evidence,3 I expressly did not consider it in deciding the unrelated question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligatio.ris under the Revised Plan. Nowhere in my Memorandum Opinion do I \"fault\" Joshua for failing to produce evidence regarding the March 19, 200 l Agreement between LRSD and ADE--a subject that clearly was not before me in the hearings on unitary status. Second, Joshua contends that I should not have addressed \"the involvement of the ODM with respect to issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson . . . [because] the competence of the ODM, the quality of the ODM reports, [and] the budget of the ODM .. . were not before the Court in evidentiary form .'\"' Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2, 6-7, and 10. The ODM, an employee of the district court, has monitored LRSD's compliance 3It strikes me as a little strange that Joshua introduced the March 19, 2001 Agreement into evidence during the hearing on unitary status and now argues, in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, that the document is irrelevant to the question of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. I agree that the document is irrelevant to the issue of substantial compliance, but this begs the question of why Joshua chose to introduce the document into evidence in the first place. I remain puzzled. 4For the record, my Memorandum Opinion does not consider \"the competence of the ODM.\" -3- A072A (Rev.8/82) with its obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1992 Desegregation Plan, and the Revised Plan. Because the ODM works for the court, all of its budgets, as well as all of the reports it has prepared over the years, have been filed and are part of the record in this case. Historically, all of the parties and the court have used ODM reports, to the extent they were relevant, during the many hearings that have taken place since 1991. After being assigned this case in January of 2002, I carefully reviewed the entire record. In doing so, I examined the ODM 's annual budgets from 1990 to date. I was troubled by the large increases in the OD M's budget over that period of time. I was also troubled by the large sums of money that I discovered had been paid to the attorneys for both Joshua and the three school di stricts.5 While attorneys are unquestionably necessary in school desegregation cases, it is the school children who ultimately are disadvantaged by unnecessary or exorbitantly high litigation costs. Thus, I believe that it was entirely appropriate for me to express my views on the ODM's rapidly escalating budgets,6 which are part of the record in this case, and the total amount of money that has been paid to all of the attorneys in this case during the last ten to fifteen years. As footnote 58 makes clear, my concern is with the enormous amount of money that has been paid to the entire professional group--the ODM, the attorneys for LRSD, PCS SD, NLRSD, and Joshua. As I thought my admonition made clear on page 44 of the Memorandum Opinion, I believe the issue of the money paid to the professional group is important because \"I understand the meaning of being careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that 51n most long-running school desegregation cases that have been decided in the last ten years, courts have expressed dismay over the high cost of school litigation. I now know why. 6See Memorandum Opinion at 26-27. -4- A072A (Rev.8/82_) _ important point fixed in their minds from here on out.\" Why Joshua's counsel seriously contend that I should not have addressed a subject of such obvious importance is beyond me. In the same vein, Joshua's counsel argue that I should not have commented on the quality of the ODM's June 14, 2000 Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD (docket no. 3366). Joshua's counsel used that Report extensively in his examination of various LRSD employees who testified during the hearings on unitary status. Joshua's decision to use that Report, one of the Court 's own documents, in his examination of witnesses on the issue of student discipline, required me to read and carefully analyze that do~ument. In doing so, I discovered patent deficiencies which rendered the Report of little use to the court or the parties in trying to determine the cause for African-American students being over-represented in disciplinary proceedings. Thus, in my discussion of the history of this litigation (Memorandum Opinion at 47-50), I was obliged to point out the flaws in the ODM's Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. I note that Joshua does not deny those flaws--they simply object to my noting them. In my Findings of Fact on the issue of student discipline, I again commented on the OD M's Report of Disciplinary Sanctions, which was prepared for the express purpose of being used by the court in monitoring and evaluating LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. In light of that fact, I believe I would have been remiss ifI had not closely scrutinfaed the ODM's Report in deciding whether LRSD had substantially complied with those sections of the Revised Plan dealing with student discipline. Otherwise, what is the role of the Judge? Finally, and perhaps most importantly on this point, none of my Findings of Fact on the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations regarding student discipline were based on anything contained in the OD M's Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. Rather, my -5- AO 72A (Rev.8/82 findings simply pointed out that, because the Report failed to develop a proper statistical model for evaluating the data on student discipline, its conclusions were based on pure speculation-making the Report of no use to the court or the parties in evaluating the cause for AfricanAmerican students in LRSD receiving a disproportionate number of suspensions. See Memorandum Opinion at 105-07, ,i,i 24-26. Third, Joshua's counsel take general exception to my discussion of the attorneys' fees that have been paid in this case during the last twenty years and particular exception to my allegedly erroneous finding \"that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time.\" Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 3. The amount that Joshua's counsel have been paid, to date, in attorneys ' fees is a matter of public record. As pointed out in footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, these attorneys' fees are as follows: $3,150,000 paid to Joshua's counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement;7 $700,000 paid by LRSD to Joshua's counsel for monitoring work performed after December 12, 1990, and before July 1, 1998 (see Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581 ); and $124,861 paid by LRSD to Joshua's counsel for monitoring work performed under the Revised Plan between July 1, 1998, and January 2001 (see Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581 ). Thus, based entirely on the evidence in the record, without any need for me to speculate or make assumptions, Joshua's counsel have been paid, to date, $3,974,861 in attorneys' fees--this is more than $3,750,000. In footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, I hazard what I admit to be a \"guess\" that, since 1990, the attorneys ' fees that LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD have paid to their own attorneys 7LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1390 (8th Cir. 1990). -6- AO 72A - ~(Rev.8/82) \"totals at least $4,000,000.\" Joshua's counsel clearly lack standing to complain about my \"guess\" regarding the aggregate amount of attorneys ' fees paid to counsel for the three school districts--an estimate that LRSD has not challenged. In light of these undisputed facts, I seriously question how Joshua's counsel can make the statement that \"counsel Walker does not accept the court's conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case.\" Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 9. With all due respect to Mr. Walker, I am having a hard time escaping the conclusion that he has been \"directly benefitted\" by receiving millions of dollars in attorneys' fees in this case. Fourth, Joshua's counsel, without citing any supporting facts, accuse me of \"a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the role oflawyers in this long-standing case\";8 \"negative attitudes toward lawyers who are involved with and associated with this case\";9 and \"a bias or hostility toward Joshua's counsel.\"10 Although this should go without saying, I want to remind Joshua's counsel that, while I ruled against them on five of the six arguments they advanced, this does not mean that I harbor any bias against or hostility toward them. 11 For the record, I have no \"predispositions,\" \"negative attitudes,\" or \"bias or hostility\" toward Joshua's counsel. I did indeed express dismay over the attorneys' fees that have been paid to all of the 8Motion for Reconsideration at 2. 9Motion for Reconsideration at 3. 10Motion for Reconsideration at 7. 11\"The Judge must not like me\" is a refrain usually sung by lawyers who have just been called to the bar--when a lawsuit doesn't tum out exactly as they had wanted. Experienced lawyers generally resist the temptation to raise this claim. -7- A072A (Rev.8/82) attorneys in this case--! believe that was a subject that called for comment during my discussion of the long history of this case. Likewise, the concerns I expressed about LRSD's decision to pay Joshua's counsel $700,000 for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright ruled Joshua's counsel had already been paid ( docket no. 2821) and the $48,333.33 per year that LRSD agreed to pay Joshua's counsel for performing monitoring work under the Revised Plan are directly supported by detailed citations to the record 12--not speculation or conjecture--and also deserved to be mentioned in my review of the history of this case. As I stated in the Memorandum Opinion, counsel for both LRSD an,d Joshua should have done a better job of documenting the reasons for the payment of these attorneys' fees and the precise role of Joshua's counsel in receiving monthly payments from LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan. However, in reaching that conclusion, I was guided entirely by the plain facts contained in the record and not by any \"preconceived ideas\" or a \"bias or hostility toward Joshua's counsel.\" Fifth, Joshua argues that: (a) because I discuss the fact that the OD M's staff and budget have more than doubled since its creation, I am implicitly criticizing \"Judge Wright's actions and the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place\"; 13 (b) I \"may be I signaling that [I] want to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the Eighth Circuit\"; 14 and ( c) I may be trying to infer that \"Joshua take over the roie of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year.\" 15 No one could fairly read the 12See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. 13Motion for Reconsideration at 6. 14Motion for Reconsideration at 7. 15Motion for Reconsideration at 7. -8- A072A (Rev.8/82) Memorandum Opinion as stating anything within shouting distance of these three farfetched notions. As I repeatedly noted in my Memorandum Opinion, Judge Wright did an outstandingjob of presiding over this case for eleven long years, during which time she faithfully and skillfully decided well over a thousand motions. Nowhere do I implicitly or explicitly direct any criticism toward her. 16 Likewise, my Memorandum Opinion makes it clear that I believe it was a good idea for the Eighth Circuit to create the ODM so that the district court and the Eighth Circuit could ensure \\. that each of the three school districts complied with their many desegregation obligations. Obviously, it is important for the ODM to continue its monitoring work until each of the three school districts is declared to be unitary and released from further supervision by the court. At this point, my only concern is that the ODM operate as frugally and efficiently as possible in going forward with its monitoring of the now much less onerous single remaining compliance issue for LRSD and the desegregation obligations that remain in effect for NLRSD and PCS SD. Finally, Joshua's counsel are absolutely correct that, in my Memorandum Opinion, there \"surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was [to] take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year ... . \" There is no such \"inference\" or \"implication.\" Sixth, Joshua argues that they should be allowed to present additional evidence ofLRSD' s alleged noncompliance with other sections of the Revised Plan. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 10-11. In support of this argument, Joshua alleges that \"the court previously 161 do not understand how counsel can possibly discern (or divine) any such criticism in the Memorandum. -9- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence [on LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing].\" This is not true. It is an after-the-fact assertion. On May 9, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3598) explaining in detail how I intended to proceed in conducting up to five days of hearings on the remaining issues Joshua had raised in their challenge to LRSD's request for unitary status. Four pages of that Order were devoted to discussing what transpired during the December l l., 2001 hearing before Judge Wright, which was held to discuss the remaining grounds for Joshua's challenge to LRSD's substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Id. at 9-12. The May 9 Order pointed out that, during the December 11 hearing, Joshua's counsel attempted to raise numerous new grounds for challenging LRSD 's alleged noncompliance after they had rested their case on what they viewed as their three strongest grounds--lack of good faith, failure to comply with obligations related to AfricanAmerican achievement, and student discipline. Judge Wright ruled that Joshua could present evidence on three remaining grounds for noncompliance: advanced placement courses; guidance counseling; and extracurricular activities. In addition, she ruled Joshua could present additional evidence of LRSD's alleged lack of good faith, but only to the extent that evidence was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. Judge Wright also made it clear that, after she had heard the evidence on these three remaining areas of alleged noncompliance, she would decide the question of unitary status. Joshua's counsel responded: \"That 's fin e, Your Honor.\" (Docket no. 3597 at 36-37.) Consistent with Judge Wright's ruling during the December 11 , 2001 hearing, the May 9 -10- A072A (Rev.8/82) Order provided that I planned to conduct up to five days of additional hearings on unitary status, during which Joshua would be allowed to present evidence of LRSD's alleged noncompliance with its obligations related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. In addition, I allowed Joshua to present noncumulative evidence related to: (a) LRSD's lack of good faith, but only to the extent that it was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities; and (b) how LRSD 's alleged failure to comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities adversely affected the aca~emic achievement of African-American students (docket no. 3598 at 13-14). I hardly see how the May 9 Order could have been any clearer in setting forth the precise ground rules regarding Joshua's three remaining challenges to LRSD's substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Joshua's counsel raised no objection to the May 9 Order, and, after completing three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22-24, 2002, Joshua's counsel rested their case challenging whether LRSD should be declared unitary. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for Joshua's counsel to argue that the court \"instructed\" them not to present evidence ofLRSD 's alleged noncompliance with numerous other provisions of the Revised Plan. Joshua's counsel agreed, flat footedly, to the ground rules for conducting the hearings on unitary status, including the six specific areas of the Revised Plan under which they challenged LRSD's substantial compliance. It is far too late for Joshua to argue that they should be allowed to engage in piecemeal litigation by raising additional grounds for attacking LRSD's substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Again--one last time--the grounds delineated by Judge Wright and me, and agreed to by all counsel, were fully litigated. -11- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) I do not know how to put it any more plainly than that. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joshua's Motion for a New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be and it is hereby DENIED. nf DATED this day // of October, 2002. -12- /)J v_J ~ . ~ L!l UNITED STATES DISTRICTJU~ THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH tULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRC ON 10 I 1 / o 2.. BY D ~VI , () AO 72A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVEf OCT 1 2 2002 OFRCE GfSEGREGATtnN ;\\\\'.: lilTGRING EAsrM~l~~gl!2b IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 1 2002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. Mc By: A K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS In a letter dated and delivered to me on October 1, 2002, counsel for Joshua requested that I modify or clarify: ( a) various aspects of the compliance remedy contained in the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (the \"Memorandum Opinion\") declaring LRSD to be partially unitary; and (b) the role of Joshua and the ODM in performing future monitoring work in this case. Later that day, I entered an Order ( docket no. 3680), stating that I intended to :treat the letter as \"a motion of some kind.\"1 In a letter dated October 9, 2002, counsel for Joshua wrote me a \"supplement\" to their October 1, 2002 letter. Attached to this Order is a copy of the October 9 letter. On October 7, 2002, LRSD filed its Response to Joshua's October 1, 2002 letter (docket no. 3681 ). Because I see no reason to await LRSD's Response to the matters raised in Joshua's 1A copy of the October 1 letter is attached to my Ord~r. A072A (Rev.8/82) October 9 letter, I will proceed to address the merits of the reliefrequested by Joshua's counsel in both of those letters. As a threshold matter, I want to clarify how I view these two letters. On September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678) requesting that I clarify or modify many aspects of the Memorandum Opinion. Because both of Joshua's letters are seeking reconsideration of still other aspects of the Memorandum Opinion, I will treat those letters as a \"Supplement\" to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and address in this Order only those arguments raised in that \"Supplement.\"2 In the future, I think it will be best if all counsel file motions--not letters--raising any issues that they believe require my attention. I should not be copied on general correspondence amongst counsel. First, Joshua's counsel request that I clarify the monitoring obligations the Memorandum Opinion imposed on them with regard to LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. I shall do so. In 1990, Joshua's counsel made the commitment to participate in a monitoring system to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCS SD complied with their desegregation obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. See Memorandum Opinion at 34. Later, in approving that Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that counsel for Joshua were \"the best  defenders and guardians of the interests of their own clients.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990). Between 1990 and 1998, Joshua's counsel participated in monitoring 2In a companion Order that I am entering contemporaneously with this Order, I have addressed and rejected the arguments raised by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) LRSD's compliance with the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1992 Desegregation Plan.3 After Joshua and LRSD implemented the Revised Plan in 1998, Joshua's counsel entered into an agreement with LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan, a task for which LRSD agreed to pay Joshua's counsel $48,333.33 per year.4 Thus, for the last twelve years, Joshua's counsel have been involved with monitoring LRSD's compliance with its desegregation obligations . . In Section VII.A., B., and C. of the Memorandum Opinion, I outlined the Compliance Remedy LRSD must implement in order to comply with its remaining obligations under  2. 7. l of the Revised Plan. Because I believe that Joshua's counsel have an ethical obligation and professional duty to monitor LRSD's compliance with its obligations under  2. 7. l , I provided a monitoring role for them in Section VII.D of the Memorandum Opinion. I intended for Joshua's counsel to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case. One could read the October 1, 2002 letter as suggesting that Joshua's counsel only intend to continue to monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan if they are ordered to do so by me. I do not believe I can force Joshua's counsel to perform monitoring duties--something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to continue to do. I will leave it up to Joshua's counsel to decide if they have an ethical duty and professional obligation to 3Judge Wright ruled Joshua's counsel were not entitled to receive attorney's fees for any monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuit's approval of the 1990 Settlement Agreement (docket no. 2821). While that ruling was on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, LRSD voluntarily agreed to pay Joshua's counsel $700,000 forperformingthatmonitoringwork. See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. 4See Memorandum Opinion at 42. -3- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) continue monitoring LRSD's compliance with its sole remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. I hope Joshua's counsel resolve that question in favor of continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSD's compliance with its desegregation obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directing them to continue monitoring LRSD's compliance with  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan--something I never expected to hear--I believe I must now modify Section VII.D. of the Memorandum Opinion to read as follows: Joshua may monitor LRSD 's compliance with  2. 7 .1 and, if they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention of LRSD, on a timely basis, all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Complianc'f: Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"process for raising corripliance issues\" set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua shall present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Regardless of whether Joshua's counsel continue to monitor LRSD's compliance with  2. 7 .1, the ODM staff most certainly will continue their close monitoring ofLRSD 's compliance with that section of the Revi_sed Plan. I have every confidence that the staff of the ODM will carefully monitor LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy I have ordered under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. If Joshua's counsel decide to continue with their monitoring role, which is independent from the monitoring work performed by the ODM, the preceding paragraphs of this Order make it clear that I expect them to follow the same monitoring practices they have followed for years in this case. I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSD's implementation of its obligations under  2. 7 .1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, I will be available to resolve them. -4- A072A (Aev.8/82) Second, Joshua's counsel makes an unsupportable and speculative statement that certain unspecified\"comments\" in the Memorandum Opinion \"indicated that [I] do not foresee orrequire a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit required.\" This assertion simply is not true. I will expect and require the ODM staff to work hard every day to ensure that all three school districts fully comply with all of their remaining desegregation obligations. Of course, for LRSD, these obligations are now far less onerous than they have been in the past. Likewise, NLRSD has already been declared unitary with regard to several ofits original desegregation obligations. In other words, while I will expect ' and require the ODM staff to diligently and fully discharge their obligation to monitor the three school districts, the reality is they now have far fewer obligations. Finally, in Joshua's counsel's October 9, 2002 letter, they request that I conduct a hearing to clarify the role of the ODM. I find there is no need for any requested clarification of the role of the ODM--much less for a hearing on that subject. I feature myself capable of directing the ODM staff in performing their ongoing duties as monitors. IfI waiver in this belief, I may, at that time, call on counsel for suggestions. Of course, if Joshua's counsel determines that the ODM staff is not adequately discharging its monitoring duties, I would expect them to immediately file an appropriate motion. In closing, let me repeat the comment I made in my companion Order addressing the merits of the arguments made by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration: \"I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua or LRSD believe that I have erred, they should appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.\" No more paper should -5- A072A (Rev.8/82) be wasted in asking me to reconsider aspects of my September 13 Memorandum Opinion or to clarify roles or responsibilities associated with the Compliance Remedy. That's myrulin'. If any party perceives error, that party should get its best hold and go to the Eighth Circuit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshua's Supplement to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Section VI.D. of the Memorandum Opinion is modified to read as set forth, supra, at 4. TM DATED this day / ( of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ ON IO '\" l Q-Z... gy_j-\"\"'-=;~,,,__,_~- -6- JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Honorable William R.Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 l3RaADWAY Lrrru: RoCK, .Aluw.SAS 7.2206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile: 604-SJ 49 October 9, 2002 0FCOtlNsEL ROBERT M~,'!..~ DONNAJ.M=r 8210 liENi\u0026gt;KRSON Ra.\\n Ll'rrl.P. Ro~ AIKANSAs 72210 PHONE: (501) 872-8426  FAX (501) 372-8428 EMAn.: mcliemyd@s1rbell.net Tiris is a supplement to my letter motion of October 1,2002. I appreciate the Court treating it as a motion, although I did not so couch it, and I believe that the appropriate action taken by the Court in inviting the parties to react will be most useful. I believe that it is important for me to specify, however, what Joshua believes it would be appropriate for the Court to do with respect to clarifying the monitoring role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I am therefore asking that the Court conduct a hearing: (a) to identify the instructions received by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (later referred as the ODM) regarding monitoring and reporting in reference to the LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status; (b) to consider whether the instructions received by the ODM were consistent with the earlier identification of ODM' s role as set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and ( c) to identify with greater particularity ODM' s monitoring and reporting role regarding the three school districts, If the Court is inclined to have me formalize my October 1, 2002 letter and today's letter in motion fonn, I will be happy to do so. I am also writing to observe that the Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration within the time allowed by law and that there has no response filed by either party within the rule time to our motion. Local Rule 7.2(b) requires that any party opposing our motion shall file such motion within eleven days. By my count, any opposing party should have filed its opposition not later than October 4, 2002. Today is obviously October 9, 2002. I am not aware that the Court has a received a Motion to Extend the Time and I have not had a request from any counsel regarding an extension of such time. Page Two October 9, 2002 Accordmgly, we request that the Court role on the motion. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Brown .!!.trorne\"J at Law 17:Z3 Broadwcy Ltrrle Rod; A:rkar..s:::s 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 .F'zc (501) 37-! '.1187 Fil TR..4.J.~SlV1ISSION COv'JER SERET p A ...:!.. 0 ..c:-1 . Date: [ To: [ Fa..\"C: l _..... .,3.c;.....c..-7 .f.. .-.o ~L-..::cJV;___ ____,7 Re: ,. ' Sender: [_= =~===l)==========; YOU SHOu'LD RECElr'\"E [_ __ (including cover sheer)} PA.GE(S), INCLUDING l'EJS COVER. S,~'f.T IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEA.SE CALL \"\u0026lt;(50]) 374-3758\u0026gt;n T.he information comaineci. :in this fu:!:im:ile m~sage is attorney privilegea and couficientfal infomiation mrended only for tb.e use of 'die indivirlulll or en.tit\u0026lt;/ nllm.ed. above. Ii tile re:icier of mis mem1ge is il.Ot the intended reci:pienr, or me employee or agenr res-pons,\"bie to de!.iver re to the intended. recipient, you sre b.ereoy aoti:iied ilim any disse::nination. di.'1ri\"ouiion or copying of cllis commuuicarion is .rtricrly prohibited. If you b.ave received. this c.onmumic:ition in c!l:IOr. p1C3.!e immedi.\u0026amp;e notify us by telephone. md = cb.e ongmal message .a l.l.'l at tile above address via rb.e U.S. Post.l.l Sc:~iice. Ti:um.k you. RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RELIEF CONCERNING THE ODM BUDGET DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order for the parties' participation in the establishment of the budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 971 F 2d. 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992). This motion is based upon the following allegations and the accompanying memorandum. 1. It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court is in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. A member of the ODM staff affected by staff and budget reductions planned by the court has contacted counsel for these intervenors with regard to her legal rights. 2. In LRSD v. PCSSD, supra, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit articulated the 1 rights of the parties with regard to the establishment fo the ODM budget. To this point, it appears that the court plans to make reductions in the ODM budget and staff without affording the parties the opportunity for participation in the budget-setting process, identified by the Court of Appeals. 3. The Joshua Intervenors concern about this matted~ magnified by the virtual non-use of ODM in the process of determining whether the LRSD had attained unitary status. That is, the court's lengthy opinion is silent on the question of the court's requesting ODM to report on any particular aspect of LRSD' s compliance with the Revised Plan, evidencing that no such request was made. 4. Appeal of the court's merits decision is likely. Any contemplated change in ODM's staffing level should take account of the fact that the Court of Appeals will have the final word - (absent Supreme Court review) on the scope of the LRSD's remaining plan obligations. 5. Alternatively, ODM' s staffing and budget should not be such that it is unable, in the future, to monitor the three districts ' compliance with remaining plan obligations in the manner contemplated by the Court of Appeals. Wherefore, the Joshua Intervenors respeqtfully pray that the court: a. provide the parties access to documents exchanged between ODM and this court concerning ODM staffing and the ODM budget (in th past and in the future): and b. permit the parties to promptly review, analyze, question, and make recommendations concerning or objections regarding the ODM budget and elements thereof, prior to their implementation. Respectfully submitted, 2 /', /) / 1 I ,I I ,  Ro 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 ohn W. Walker ~ John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 AR 64046 . - . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2002 OFACE OF OCT :  DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAM Es 'J1J fi,_ r- r , ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT \u0026amp;'!JllT_  f. ~-A\u0026lt; EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS -- WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ~S. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE ODM BUDGET The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit this memorandum in support of their accompanying motion for relief concerning the ODM budget. It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court is apparently in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. In a 1992 decision, the Court of Appeals identified the roles of the court and the parties in the establishment of the ODM budget. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 971 F 2d. 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992). The motion seeks to insure that the parties have the opportunity for participation identified by the appellate court. A viable ODM is important to these intervenors because in their counsel's view the ODM was not given by the court the role envisioned by the Court of Appeals in the process for  determining court that the LRSD had attained unitary status in most areas. Intervenors' counsel 1 want to guard against a like result in the future. . ,1/ J ff -4? . IC7Ju L / ) ~ ,,y~/4 Robert Pressman t- 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 I I :..- / Respectfully submitted, . . 46 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been to all counsel of record on this r, day of October, 2002. )  ,- / / ,-) ( ./ J26 7 : /_,,,/ \u0026lt;\"// / -1 :./ c)---r. '-1 - 1  /, r ,1 ,J\\ 'l,/.v,__(,'f 1 1-v ,: __,,, 2 RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER OCT '1 C 2002 JAMES \\'I'. L'i -=RK Qy: ___ -\"t.L--=ll'~.\u0026amp;..\u0026lt;;::;:,...,..,.~~ Defendants Intervenors Intervenors Joshua Intervenors have filed a pleading entitled \"The Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget.\" Paragraph 4 of this pleading reflects that, \"(a)ppeal of the court's merits decision is likely.\" If an appeal is to be taken, Joshua's motion is considerably premature. Following the procedure used in the past in this case (and Eighth Circuit directives), once a proposed budget is submitted by the ODM, I will enter an Order attaching a copy of the proposed budget and will provide all parties an opportunity to file objections or comments. ! To my knowledge, no proposed budget has yet been submitted, and; if an appeal is taken, it is unlikely that there will be any significant changes in the budget until the appeal is decided. Accordingly, because Joshua's motion is premature, it is denied, without prejudice. rfl IT IS SO ORDERED this 11_ day of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR~(~ ON\\o \\ l~ 10 2..- 8YJ\u0026gt;.1~~~-;;_=.....- U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE { .,, 6 8 8 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 2 1 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFACE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. Plan 2000 requires that: \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area will be built.\" 2. The PCSSD proposes to acquire a site located at Carnahan and Murphy Drives in Maumelle, Arkansas and to construct its new middle school there. 3. The PCSSD proposes to build a school with a capacity of 1,000 students and to reserve 200 seats for M to M students. 4. The history of the site selection process, statistical projections concerning racial balance and other pertinent information is set forth in the accompanying memorandum. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays that its motion be granted and for all proper relief. 373871-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 22, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 373871-v1 2 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 2,i 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFACE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE Plan 2000 Plan 2000 requires that: \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area will be built.\" This Court approved a district-wide conversion to middle schools on June 4, 2001. Accordingly, this request is specifically to build a middle school to be located at Carnahan and Murphy Drives, Maumelle, Arkansas. A Brief History 1. Pine Forest Elementary School remains the only PCSSD school within the city limits of Maumelle. Pine Forest Elementary School was built in 1980. The present capacity of the school as used this year is 556 .. Maumelle was incorporated in 1985 with a population of 4,359. Today, the population of Maumelle is approximately 10,557. 369448-v1 2. Since its inception as a town in the 1960s, junior and senior high students from Maumelle have all been bused to Oak Grove Junior-Senior High School. As noted in previous filings with this Court, the PCSSD desires to convert Oak Grove into a 9-12 high school and to construct a 6-8 middle school to substitute for the current Oak Grove Junior High School. 3. Currently, Pine Forest Elementary, which would jettison its sixth grade under this proposal, can accommodate only 63% of K-6 children residing in Maumelle. The remainder are currently bused to either Crystal Hill Elementary or Oak Grove Elementary. Under this proposal, both Crystal Hill and Oak Grove Elementary would become K-5 schools. 4. To accommodate current M to M sixth graders at Crystal Hill and to otherwise help realize a fully intergraded middle school, the PCSSD would reserve 200 seats at the new middle school for M to M students. 5. The PCSSD Board of Directors voted 6 to Oto seek approval for a school located within Maumelle at their meeting held on November 13, 2001. Advantages of a Maumelle Site 6. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to move toward completing its conversion to the middle school system and will relieve over-crowding at the landlocked Oak Grove Campus. 7. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to establish a middle school with an interdistrict feature offering more choices and grade levels particularly for those LRSD students who currently attend Crystal Hill Elementary. 369448-v1 2 8. The PCSSD proposes to construct the school with a capacity of'1,000 students providing room not only for the 200 seats reserved for M to M students 1, but also space for students who can be attracted from the local charter school, area private schools and children who are currently being home-schooled. 9. The PCSSD proposes to begin construction by April 1 of 2003 so that the new facility can be open for education by August of 2004. The PCSSD requests approval of this motion as early as reasonably possible so that sites specific work can be completed prior to the April 1, 2003 commencement of construction. 10. The PCSSD proposes to pay for the acquisition and the construction of the school by re-financing existing debt as approved by the voters on September 17, 2002. The Site Selection Process 11. On January 17, 2002, Dr. Henderson, then Assistant Superintendent for Support Services and now Interim Superintendent, addressed approximately 150 parents at the Pine Forest PTA meeting regarding the progress toward selecting a site for a new middle school. Five different proposed sites were highlighted. 12. On February 4, 2002, Dr. Henderson addressed the Crystal Hill Elementary PTA meeting. Again, approximately 150 parents were in attendance and the same five proposed sites were reviewed with them. 13. Dr. Henderson addressed the Oak Grove Elementary PTA meeting on March 5, 2002. Approximately 90 parents were in attendance. On this occasion, seven 1 By agreeing to this reservation, the PCSSD is assuming that M to M funding as currently configured and provided will remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If such funding is reduced or eliminated in the future, the continued reservation of such seats would likely prove impossible. 369448-v1 3 proposed sites were described. 14. By letter dated March 13, 2002, Dr. Henderson invited the Joshua lntervenors to serve on the Site Selection Committee. By letter dated March 15, 2002, Mr. John Walker, on behalf of Joshua, declined the invitation to participate. 15. By memo dated March 19, 2002, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers nominated Diane Jones to serve on the Site Selection Committee, as a Knight intervenor. 16. By memo dated March 14, 2002, the principal of Crystal Hill Elementary School forwarded the names of four parents who desired to serve as members of the Site Selection Committee. One of those is a parent of an M to M student attending Crystal Hill. Oak Grove and Pine Forest Elementary Schools provided a bi-racial list of committee members by telephone. 17. A preliminary meeting of the Bi-Racial Site Selection Committee, which included representatives of ODM, was held on April 23, 2002, at Pine Forest Elementary School. 18. The second meeting of the Site Selection Committee was held on April 29, 2002, at Crystal Hill Elementary School. As part of this meeting, the Committee physically visited the seven possible sites. 19. As the process continued, some of the sites were deleted for various considerations including costs and lack of availability. 20. A copy of the minutes of the meeting held on April 29, 2002, is attached as Exhibit A. It includes capsule descriptions of each site evaluated including information concerning costs. 369448-v1 4 21. The next meeting was held May 8, 2002, at Oak Grove Elementary School. 22. A revised list of the Site Selection Committee members as of May 1, 2002, is attached as Exhibit B. 23. At the Oak Grove meeting, an initial vote was taken to rank the available sites. A final meeting was held on June 10, 2002, at Pine Forest Elementary School. At the end of the process, the site described in Paragraph 1 of this memorandum was selected by the Committee and approved by the School Board. Statistical Considerations 24. As part of the Court approved process for building Crystal Hill Elementary School, the PCSSD agreed to reserve up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill for transferring LRSD students. The construction of the middle school would eliminate the sixth grade at Crystal Hill. It is appropriate to reserve, at a minimum, that prorata number of seats at the new school for LRSD students. 25. Excluding pre-K, there are seven grades at Crystal Hill including kindergarten. This equates to 14% of the seats. 14% of 399 is 56 seats. 26. This number, however, is not sufficient to reach the long-standing PCSSD goal of a minimum of 20% African American students at every school. Accordingly, the PCSSD proposes to reserve a total of 200 seats for eligible M to M transfers at the new school. This would provide 10% of the African American student body if the school is built to house 1000 students. 27. This number coupled with the African American student population currently residing in the Crystal Hill, Pine Forest and Oak Grove zones will be sufficient 369448-v1 5 to safely populate the new school at at least 20% minority. An examination of the current fourth, fifth and sixth grades at those referenced schools demonstrates this projection. Crystal Hill Pine Forest Oak Grove 4\"' Grade Black Students 4\"' Grade Black Students 4\"' Grade Black Students MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total 51 51 2 9 11 5 9 14 5'\" Grade Black Students 5'\" Grade Black Students 5'\" Grade Black Students MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total 51 51 0 20 20 1 6 7 61 \" Grade Black Students 6'\" Grade Black Students 6'\" Grade Black Students MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total 38 38 3 8 11 4 17 21 140 140 5 37 42 10 32 42 28. To make the projection, one should consider both the M to M students currently attending 41 \\ 5th and 6th grade at these schools, together with the resident African American population in these zones. This totals 224 students. This number, as compared to 1,000 seats, projects a minimum population of over 22% African American at the new middle school. 29. Overall, the latest census figures project 7 40 school children between the ages of 12 and 15 years old will be resident within the city limits of Maumelle by the . - year 2005. (Please see Exhibit C). This, together with the students who will be transferred from the Oak Grove area together with the projected M to M students, dictates sizing the school to accommodate 1,000 students. Staffing 30. There should be no negative affects on current staffing. While the Oak Grove Junior/Senior High will be no more, the new middle school will require similar, if not identical, administrative staffing. 369448-v1 6 31. The same students who are currently taught at the sixth grades at the three elementary schools will simply attend the new middle school. The same students who would be seventh and eighth graders at Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School will simply be attending the new middle school but will require the same number of teachers as the District currently employs at the sixth grade in the elementary schools and at the seventh and eighth grades at Oak Grove. Attendance Areas 32. The \"attendance zone\" for the new middle school will be identical to the current attendance zone for Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School. Accordingly, there will be no need to change any attendance zones. Transportation 33. Currently, all secondary Maumelle students are transported from ', ... Maumelle to Oak Grove for grades seven through twelve. Under this concept, resident Maumelle students would now be allowed to attend grades six, seven and eight in their resident community but would continue to be transported for grades nine through twelve at Oak Grove High School. Those Oak Grove students currently attending Oak Grove Junior High School would be transported to Maumelle for their middle school years. The PCSSD believes that this arrangement generates greater equity for the affected communities as the transportation factor is more equally shared under the new arrangement. 34. M to M students would continue to be transported by choice. That is, since they elect to be M to M students, they are not \"assigned\" to the schools they select. Under this proposal, they would simply have the option to continue in an 369448-v1 7 interdistrict setting that includes the seventh and eighth grades and does not terminate at the sixth grade. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the Court approve the location of a new middle school located at Carnahan and Murphy Drives, Maumelle, which would reserve 200 seats for M to M transfer students and for all proper relief. 369448-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By _ ....,...._~--..,..:....;:;=-a.__ _____ _ A nty Special s 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 22, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 369448-v1 9 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 12201  Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Donald J. Henderson, ED.D. Assistant Superintendent DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2227 Ext. 209 Fax: (501) 490-0483 Minutes of Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Bi-Racial Selection Committee Meeting April29,2002 Dr. Don Henderson opened the meeting by handing out a_ meeting agenda and a sign-in sheet for attendees to sign. Dr. Henderson provided several handouts to the attendees and discussed each handout as .they were distributed. Comments and questions were made during the handout process. Dr. Henderson introduced Mr. Jim Sharkey, City of Maumelle, who went over the possible sites. Mr. Sharkey had several map displays that helped show the location of the sites. The sites discussed were six sites from the Maumelle area and the site adjacent to Crystal Hill Elementary owned by PCSSD. Sites 1 and 2 are owned by the City of Maumelle and land costs would be $25,000 per acre. If one of these sites is selected the City would provide an access road and utilities to the site. Site 3 is along Maumelle Boulevard north of the Kroger Store. This site originally was 19 acres but due to a recent partial sale the area now available is 12 acres. Additional acreage is available from adjacent property owners so that a 20 plus acre site could be obtained. The owners of these lands would want to do some type of land swap rather than sell the properties. Access and utilities are available to this site. Site 4 is a 19-acre site at intersection of Naylor Drive and North Odom. Asking price is $50,000 per acre. Access and utilities are available to this site. - Site 5 is a 42-acre site north of the Molex Plant. Needed acreage would be available at $1 .00/SF ($43,560 per acre). Access and utilities are available~to 1111 ___ 1111!11_IIII this site. . EXHIBIT I Site 6 is an 18-acre site owned by Baptist Health. Addition acreage is available from adjacent property owners so a 20 plus acre site could be obtained. Price is in the $2.00 to $2.50/SF ($87,120 to $108,900 per acre) range. Access and utilities are available to this site. Site 7 is property owned by PCSSD that is adjacent to Crystal Hill Elementary. Approximately 20 acres of the 30 acres originally purchased for an elementary/middle school site is available for a middle school. The property value in this area is probably in the $3.50 to $5.00/SF ($152,460 to $217,800) range. This site could be used in a land swap if needed. Following Mr. Sharkey's presentation a field trip via PCSSD school bus was made to visit each of the possible sites. The field trip concluded at approximately 8:00 PM. Next meeting of committee will be at Oak Grove Elementary on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 at 5:30 PM.  Revised 05/01/02 CRYSTAL HILUMAUMELLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBER Terri Ayers ( j. ; 12 Mine Hill ; I No. Little Rock, AR 72118 758-2861 / Russell Laster 24 Hogan Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 851-2151 j Ms. LaBrenda Cohens 1 \u0026lt;1j ').. ?- 7-022 Marche Lateral Road No. Little Rock, AR 72118 851-1717 Mr. Anthony Gross ~,- ., 10711 Mundo Road No. Little Rock, AR 72118 r t \u0026gt;.- Ms. Diane Jones _,} r  123 Ridgeland Drive  Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8188 / M s. P am Skile s ..f,. . :,.. i ,,. \".I  ': .;_ 13 Havenwood Lane 1\\ 1 Maumelle, AR 72113 753-7653 / Ms. Pam Roberts 117 Carnahan, Suite 3 : .1. :.  {:'j : i.__:,tJJ :,..., Maumelle, AR 72113 851-9300 ,11'1s. Essie Coffee .i'. 1),/ 13916 Old Maumelle Rd. Maumelle, AR 72113 851-2696 I ,. ! v'Walter Pace , l-s( i'-,  25023 Highway 365, North Maumelle, AR 72113 851-1388 :. : . \\ ~ .. ~\\ ~ REPRESENTING Crystal Hill Elementary Parent Crystal Hill Elementary Parent Oak Grove Elementary Parent Oak Grove Elementary Parent Knight Intervenors Community Person PCSSD School Board Member District Bi-Racial Committee District Bi-Racial Committee I EXHIBIT /3 -/4s. Mary Scruggs 8 Hickory Place Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8450 -l -.. .. - vl\\1r. Brent Lowrey J. :;.!' . '. (t\\.; 14505 Berberich No. Little Rock, AR 72118 803-4456 . /4r. and Mrs. Reggie Davis _  4 Holly Brook Cove :,_.\\ ';\\) I 1 Maumelle, AR 72113 851-2177 , Mrs. Nancy Foster 12 Barber Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8708 / 1-Mrs. Shenel Sandidge '.  : . _ ,, 17 Pin Oak Loop (_., . Maumelle, AR 72113 \\ (_.-, :,; if_, ,. f:, ~..l 57(H) 682-7893(W) Mrs. Carol Worley 12 Stoneledge Drive i . } \\ ( . Maumelle, AR 72113 'r'.\\ r: : , , . J 851-8208 (H) ~2.1'.\"~.5~5 (W) v1'1rs . Melissa Guldin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza r: ,, t ! 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 , :\\\\ : \\ Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6200 / Mr. Horace Smith Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza ('.  i : 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6200 .)Mr. Richard Crider 26 Sugarloaf Loop Maumele, AR 72113 851-8846 . . .... -   ..  --  --~--- --- ......... . Oak Grove Elementary Parent , Oak Grove Elementary Parent :,u' Pine Forest Elementary Parent Pine Forest Elementary Parent Pine Forest Elementary Parent Office of Desegregation Office of Desegregation Crystal Hill Elementary Parent . ( . I ~ 's. Barbara Means '.: __ l.~ / M ... 1J, tI; t ,.;-,L. .. ~_r j \"J tv'~ ,'\\\\\": _. 13500 Ridgehaven Road G ; . \\( U i C ..-r \u0026lt; ,.\\ Little Rock, AR 72211 223-8477 Dr. Donald J. Henderson. 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 490-6209 Dr. Martha Johnson 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 490-6205 Mr. Jim Sharkey, CCD Director Community and Economic Development 550 Edgewood Drive, .Suite 590 Maumelle, AR 72113 Mr. Junius Babb Assistant Superintendent Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Mr. Bobby Acklin North Little Rock School District 2700 North Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 Crystal Hill Elementary Paren,t PCSSD Assistant Superintendent PCSSD Director of Equity ., . c~;s~s~,ta-_f~ ;r -\u0026lt; . -~ . Pulaski County Special School District . Pro:pQsed)\\fi:dd'}e S~bool ,.  According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 1,984 children between the ages .of 5 to 17 years old reside within-the City of Maumelle . . The average annual growth rate for.this age group w~ 4%, between the y.eatS 1990 and 2000. Based on:this continued average rate of growth, the City of Maumelle should have . approximately 2; 146 children in the-year 2002 and 2, 4l4 children in the: y~ar-2005. According to the 2000 U.S. -Census, 591 children between the ages of 12 to 15 years old . reside within the-City of Maumelle. The average annual growth rate for this age group was 4. 6%, between the years 1990 and 2000. Based on this continued average rate of growth, the City of Maumelle should have  approximately 646 children in the year 2002 and 740 children in the year 2005. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 431 children between the ages of 13 to 15 years old reside within the City of Maumelle. Unfortunately, the U.S. Census did not obtain data on 12 to 13 year old children. Source: Mr. Jerry L. Bell Assistant Research Specialist Census State Data Center UALR Institute for Economic Avancement Tel: 501-569-8538 EXHIBIT I ~ RECEIVED C lr-D \\f- li--..J\"l'ff OCT 2 9 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERJ.'-J DIVISION U s OISlRICT ~~SAS EASTE.RN DISTRICT oc, 2 5 2002 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLER~ B'f.- OE.P CLE.RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether 28 U.S.C. 455 has any relevance to the present proceedings. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that 28 U.S .C. 455 states: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge J of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questions. (b) He shall also disqualify hi\"mself in the follovving circumstances: (]) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judg eor such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or -1- expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; (d) For the purpose of this section the following words or phrases shallhave the meaning indicated: (1) \"proceeding\" includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation; In reference to 28 U.S .C. 455(b)(2), the Comt is required to disqualify itself\"where in private practice he served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy ... \" Undersigned counsel are informed that the Honorable District Court, while in private practice, appeared in 833 F.2d 113 (8th Cir. 1987) in re: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski Countv Special School District, No. 1., Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The cited Opinion addressed the issue of whether Judge Henry Woods should be disqualified. The disqualification - issues had been raised by several of the parties including, notably, the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. See attached Opinion, Exhibit A. The Court of Appeals determined \"that errors of procedure took place but we do not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiality or bias on the part the able and experienced district judge.\" The Court of Appeals apparently upheld the arguments of his honor which were made while His Honor was in private practice. The Court of Appeals did not explain its reasons in that Opinion but did so in 839 F.2d 1296, 1299. The disqualification issues, which were presented by His Honor while in private practice, were addressed in a lengthy Opinion on pages 1301, 1302 and 1303. The Court of Appeals, in that same Opinion, also addressed many of the issues which are raised or could have been raised in the present proceedings including compensatory programs in the LRSD, 839 F.2d 1306, magnet schools, 839 F.2d 1309, and teacher assignments in LRSD, 839 F.2d 1296. -2- The Court , in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002, included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals (see Exhibit B) hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two impo1iant Opinions in which the Collli, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Plaintiff's counsel have sought to obtain the briefs which were filed with respect to Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 by His Honor, while in private practice, and any other briefs or activity which address that subject and have been unable to do so in a timely fashion. Their own records are incomplete regarding those filings . Request has been made of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, however, to retrieve such briefs of all the parties regarding the two cited cases and are informed by the Clerk of that Court that he will retrieve the file. See Exhibit C. The Joshua Intervenors request that the Court convene an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of exploring the role the Court had, if any, while in private practice with respect to the subject case. - In this respect, counsel having just learned this information, also notes that the Court has employed as a law clerk of the Court's staff one of the original lawyers who filed the instant case, Ms. Janet Pulliam. Counsel also note that at least one of Joshua counsel is a friend of Ms. Pulliam. Ms. Pulliam and her associates, however, are listed as counsel of record in at least these appellate citations; 778 F.2d 404, 407; and 959 F.2d 716. She was in association with Phil Kaplan and other counsel in833 F.2d 112 where Mr. Kaplan's name appears before the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. and she was in association with Mr. Kaplan in 839 F.2d 1296. This is confirmed by the fee application of counsel for the LRSD which went to the Comi of Appeals in 1992. See Exhibit D. The Joshua Intervenors believe that 28 US.C. 455 issues are raised which should be developed at a hearing. Counsel are not moving for the Court to recuse at this time; however they would like to have an opportunity to review the proceedings that are set fo1ih above and any other ,., - .) - writings to which the Court was privy, while in private practice, between himself and his client, Judge Woods. In that way, the Com1 and the pai1ies would be in a better position to address the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 455. FURTHERMORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully further pray that at such heaiing the Court 1) inform counsel whether the present assignment of this case to this Court considered His _Honor's earlier role in the case while in private practice, in the light of28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2); 2) the basis for the Com1's conclusion that it did not have a duty to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 (b )(2); and 3) request that the Court, if possible, make available to counsel copies of all briefs which His Honor has filed in this case while in private practice. '; 7 / ,. ./ , I / I .  I, . I  //\\ /--J';,( -~-+ ,/_ ~ '-c,'2-r,.;,f,-/'Lu:..._;, Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 40960 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, Jo n W. Walker, AR Bai No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (50 l) 374-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hick1\u0026lt;_9{ Bar No. 89235 -. Attorney at L-a:w Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 -4- \\ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing: hqf been serzs:9- fl -~ ,,,and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this i-5 , l\\_day of cfl-. '/?-\u0026amp;..., 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -5- Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rocle Arkansas 72201 Ivlr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 3 833 FIWERAL llEI'ORTEU, 2d SE!t!ES In 1e LJ'l\"J'LI~ HOCK SCHOOi, lllS'!'lllC'r, Petilloncr. LITTLE HOCK SCIIOOL DIS'fJtl C:r, Appellant, V. PUl,ASIU COUNTY SPECIAi, SCHOOi, DlS'l'Rl\u0026lt;.:I' NO. I, Appcllcc. Nos. 87-2150, 87-2303. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuiL Submitted Nov. 3, 1987. Deciclcd Nov. 6, 1U87. Supplemental Opinion Filed l'eb. 9, 1988. l.,iligalion was hroughl involving election for school board positions. The Uniled States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Henry Woods, J., direct,. ed elections for three school board positions and nppenl was filed and petition for writ of mandate was filed asking for disqualification of district coutt judge. The Court of Appeals, Arnold, Circuil .Judge, held Lhnt: (1) fact Lhat lawyer wilh whom trial judge once practiced npp\"ared at one time in nnolher case consolidated with pending cnse did not require district court judge's disqualification, and (2) enors of procedure in p1oceeding did not give rise lo reasonable inference of parLialily or bias so as to require disqualiricalion of district courL judge. Ordered accordingly. J. Judges e,,45 Fact that lawyer with whom district court judge once practiced appeared at one lime for amicus curiae in case consolidated with and Inter severed from pending case did not warrant disquali(icalion of district court judge; consolidated case was closed case, or at most, dormant, when it was consolidated and such fleeLing and tenuous connection did not require recusal. 28 U.S. C.A.  455(n), (h)(2). l.   Herny Woods, Unile\u0026lt;I Slates Dislrlct 2. Judges \u0026lt;S=-~9(1) Procedural errors which occurred in litigation involving school board election did not give rise to reasonable inference of partiality or hias so as to require disqualification of district court judge. 28 U.S.C.A.  465(a), (b)(2). P.A. Hollingsworth, LiLtle Rock, Ark., for appellant. William R. Wilson, Jr., Little Rocle, Ark., fot Judge Woods in mandamus. Phil Kapla,i, Little Rock, Ark., for Little Rock School Dist.  Sam Perroni, Little RocU, Ark., for Rayburn. Phillip Lyon, Chicago, 111., for North Lit,. tie Rock. Before HEJi NEY, ARNOLD, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. The two proceedings captioned above, to gether wiLh a number of appeals raising related issues, were argued before us on November 3, 1987, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Two of Lhe many important issues p1esenled deserve immediate answers: (1) Shall the school-board election now scheduled for December 8, 1987, in the Little Rock School District (LRSD), be allowed to lake place? (2) Who shall preside over the District Court! No. 87- 2368 is an appeal by LRSD from Lhe DistricL Court's I order of October 1, 1987, directing that elections for three school-board positions be held on December 8, 1987. This order is affirmed. We find no error of law, abuse of discretion, or clearly erroneous finding of fact in the District Court's order. It is ou, understanding that LRSD is free now to pursue actively the search for a new superintendent, and that it will be free to hire someone right after the elec tion. No. 87-2160 is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by LRSD, asking us to Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. APPLICATlON OF WOOD 113 Cltcns833 F.211 ltJ (SlhClr. 1981) declare that Judge Woods should have dis- The judgment in No. 87-2363 is affirmed qualified himself. In the alternative, it is The petition for writ of mandamus in No. suggested that we simply direct that anoth 87-2160 is denied. We t.lirect lhnt our rnnn er judge be assigned lo this case. ln addi dates in these lwo cases issue forthwiU1 lion to the petition for mandamus, various 1 t is 50 ordere\u0026lt;l. appeals also include suggestions for Lhe disqualification of the trial judge. We are not satisfied that such drastic re1ief is ap propriate. [1] Two main grounds for recusal are urged. First, a lawyer with whom Judgt? Woods once pracLiced appeared at one Lime for an amictis curiae in a case called Cla,t, v. Board of Educ. of the Little Rock School Dist, No. LR-C-64-155. The o;otrict Court first consolidated Cla,k with the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2), which requires disqualification \"where in private practice . . a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously prncliced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter.\" We disagree with this argumenl Clark was a closed case, or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous con nection between the present case and the judge's p3rlner's activiLies while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. [21 In addition, Lhe parties seeking disqualification assert that because of certain procedural improprieties the judge's \"impartiality might reasonably be questioned.\" 28 U.S.C.  455(a). We agree that errors of procedure took place, but we do not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiali ty or bias on the part of U,e able and experienced District Judge. He has performed with diligence in circumstances that are anything but easy. We decline to re rnove him from the case.  Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with re spect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. In re Applicalion of Lnny A. WOOD lo Appear Before the Grnnd Jury (Misc. 85-L-02). Appcnl of UN11'ED S'l'A'fl~S of America. No. 86-1719. United SLnl.es Court of Appenls, Eighth Circuit Submilled March 10, 1987. Decided Nov. 12, 1987. Former conspirncy defendant, who w; acquilted, broughL applicalion to mnke inc vidual presentation lo grand jury concer ing allegations of perjury by F'Bl agent. United States ALtorney presented alleg lions lo grand jury, which declined to t.al acLion. Applicant then filed petition alle ing matter had not been fairly present, nnd again requesting permission to nppe before grand jury. The United Slntea D lrict Court, District of Nebraska, Wan, !{. Urbom, J., issued order lo United St.ul Attorney of Disll\"ict to make represen1 lion of matler, or applicant's petition war be granted. The United States appeal\u0026lt; The Court of Appe\u0026gt;tls, Henney, Cir\u0026lt;! Judge, held that (1) District Court's ori was proper exercise of supervisory pow and (2) order did not violate separation powers. Affirmed. f\u0026lt;'agg, CircuiL Judge, dissented w opinion. ~ --  \u0026lt;.\u0026gt; ~- ..) ---:s: -~ l-l{ - 921 F.2d 1371 (1990) 949 F.2d 253 (1991) 56 F.3d 904 (1995) 148 F.3d 956 (1998) 243 F.2d 361 (1957) .369 F.2d 661 (1966) 426 F.2d 1035 (1970) 449 F.2d 493 (1971) 465 F.2d 1044 (1972) 705 F.2d 265 (1983) 778 F.2d 404 (1985) - 971 F.2d 160 (1992) 131 F.Jd 1255 (1997) 83 F.Jd 1013 (1996) 112 F.3d 953 (1997) JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS ivlr. j\\,fichael Gans United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House Room 24.329 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, MO 63102 JOHN vV. 'vVALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA.t'C (501) 374-4187 Vi.a Facsimile - 314-244-2780 October 22, 2002 Re: Case No. 84-1543 Little Rock School District v. Joshua; Case No. 84-1620 Little Rock School District; OF COUNSEL ROBERT JVIcHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. 21-IcHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD W'ITLE ROCK. ARKANSAS i2210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EM.ill: mchenryd@swbell.net Case Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 - Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School Dear Mr. Gans: Would you kindly search your files and advise whether you have in your archives the briefs of the Appellants and the Appellees regarding the above captioned cases. I am panicularly interested in whether there were briefs filed on behalf of the District Court in the above captioned cases. JWW:js Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~incerely, %9 F'JWBJIJ\\L ItEPOitTJm, 2d SERJES Cl'lTl,E R\u0026lt;JCI( SCHOOL D!STR!CT. Appollant, Aune Milchell; Bob Moore; Pfl.t Gee; Pal Rayburn; Mary .T. Gngej North LiHli Roch CIDs:;room Teachers Associalion; Pula!;Jd Association rJf Clai-~room TeaChP.r~; Litf.le Rock Cl~ssroom 'J.'':!:achers Association; Al~xa Arm slron:;; I{arlos Armsfronr;; Etl Bullinv ton; 1\\h,yyam DcJ.vjs; .Jani1.::e Deni: John Harrison; Alvin 1-J.ndson; Talia Hut.Ison; Milton .Jacksoni Lor\u0026lt;2:ne Jo.~ht1a; Lesl.ie .lo!'lhu;:,.; Stacy .Joshua: Wayne .Joshuai ltatherine f{nighl: Sara Matthews; Ber.it)' Mcl{inney; .Derr iclt Milesi .hrnlCe Miles; .John M. Mi l2s; NAACPi Joyce Person; Brli1n Tnyl01:; Hilton Taylor; Par5l,a 'f~ylor: RfJbert Willingham; 1'011y~ Willi11g. ham, Jnterve11orn, V. PULASIU COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOi, D_18TJ1ICT II I; North Little . Rock School DislrJct; Ll;!:OI\\ B:irues; Sheryl Dunn; Mac Faulhn~ri Ilichanl A. Gid, ding:,; Mari:,.rme Go::;ser; Dl111 Hind man; Shirley Lowery; Bob Lyon: GCorge A. McCrary; Bob l\\lf)rnr.; Stert Morley; Buddy R~ines; D~vid Sain: Hoh Stender; Dole Wnrd; John \\VRrd: Judy Weari Gni.inger Williams, Dcfen- 1lant-::, PhiliJl E. Kapla11; JanP.t PulH::i.mi John Bi.lheilner; F.A. Holling!'iworth, Appel lees. LITTLE llOCK SCl!OOL JJJSTHICT, Appellee, Aune Mitchell; Bob P.-'loore: Pat Gee; Piit R~Jburn; Mary .T. Gage; fforth Lilllr . Roel( Clrtl=i!'il'oorn Teachers /\\ssociation: Pul::u,ld As:mciation or Classroom Teachers; Little Reel\u0026lt; Classroom Te::tchets Assnc.ialion; Alexa J\\_rm!' it.ro11g; I{arlos An11!'itron11; Ed Dul/ingt, 111; l{huyyam Dads; Janice Deni: .Jo h 11 Hnnisun; Alvin Hut.Ison; T:1li.i ; . t: i.,l'l'TLE 1t0CJ{ SCHOOL lHS'l', \" Plll,ASIO \u0026lt;)T\\'. 8CltOOL I . 'i.l'I Cllc :i.c: 959 F.,.d 716 (IUh Cir. 1992) Huclsun: Milton Jackson; .l,ur-?:nc Josh- Sara l\\lnU:llcw:,: H\u0026lt;'cl(J' l\\'lcllin ucJ'; Hcr- 110; Le~lie. Joshua; Slncy Joshun; riclr J\\.li les; .Tn ni (e Mi.lr.:r.; Jo hn M. Wr1y11e Joshua; J(alhninc J.{nighl.; Miles; NAACP; Joy\u0026lt;:~ .Pcnm11: Bthrn Sl\\rn ~fa.Llhews: He.ckr l\\ld{ inuer; Der- Taylor: .lli ll.0 1\\ 'l':t)' lor; Par i:: hn TaJ lor; rick ~mes; Janice ntiles; .Juhn I\\'[. lloherl. \\V illi11 p. lrn 111: 'f'onJ'a Willin rr- ~liles; NAACP; Joyce Persol!; Ddan Imm, lulervcnon;, Tr1rlor; Hilto11 Taylor; Pan; lrn. Tay lor; v .  Robert Willi11ghru11: To11yn Will ing- PUl. ,\\Sl\\l CO\\JN'l'Y sn;c.u1. SCIIOOI, ham, IntervenonJ, PULASl{l COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT # I: North Little !lock School District: L(!on Barnes; Sher.\\'! D111111: J\\lnc Faullrner; Riclrn rd A. GicldingSi Mnria1111c Gosser; Don Himlmnn; Shirley i..fJtrery: Bob L)'OJli George A. l\\kCrory; Bol, Moore; Sl.c,e ~forley; Butld.r Rnines; Dadd Sain: Dab Stender; Dale \\Varel; .J ohn Wnnl; Judy Wear; Grainger Willin111s, De[en don ls, Philip E. J{nphn; .i~t1et Pullia111; .John IJilhcimer: P.A. llo ll i11gsworth, Appe/la11ls. LITJ'LE ROC![ SCHOOL DIS'l'!llCT. Appelhrnt, Anne Milchclli llolJ l\\foore; Pat. Gee; Pnf: Hayburn; l\\fory .J. Gage: Norlh Little flock C.:las~room Tcad1crs Association; Pulos-kt Assor.iation ur Classro(1m Tenchers; J ,iltle Rock Cla~sroont . Teo.chers J\\.ssodalion; Alcxn Arm-strong; Rarlos Annslro11g; Ed B11fli11r.lo11; l(hayyfuu J.)avi!';; Janice Hcnl.: John Harrison; Aldn Ilml.c;on; 'l'alin Hudson: Milton .fncksoni .Lorc11e .Jo~h. ua; Leslie .Joshua; Sl0;cy J o~ lrn :i; Wa_rne .Jo~lni:i.; !{nllt!!dne JC11 ig-llt.i IJISTl l l CT ff .l: North l,lltlc H.oclt fk hoo l Hist.rid: Leon JJ:in1 1~!;i Sher.1'1 1J111111; .t\\:lnc Ji'1111 llmer; lticJrnnl A. n it1- di 11 r,s; Muri:rnne Om:sex; ])un Jl i1111- 1tm n; Sh irlny l,nwcty: Uob L.Yon: \u0026lt;:cnrirc A. McCrnry; Hoh Moon::; Steve .l\\'lorl~y; Utu111y .1lai 11 e5; 1):1\\'id S:i i1t; Boh Sl:cntlc r; On ie \\Vnnl; John Wnnl; Jud]' Wear; (~ rai11 r~er \\V illi;1111 ~, DP.fen~ Phi.lip R Rapln11: .fmtd I1u11i:1111; Joh11 Bilheimer: P.A .. ll ollin ~!-wmth. Appcll cte,;. Nos. D.l-.tr.3R, !H-1U1R, , .. ,,1 D.l--ZIG2. United Stat.es Court: or Appe:tlf::, gight;h Circuit. Suhmitted ,fan. '1, J992. Decided Marc:li ?..!I, .lH92. .Law firm which ,eprescuted school di$ti ict in schoril de~eg-rcg:ll:io11 Ci\\SC n11plied (or att.orney fees for  ~crv icP.s rendP. rr.,1. The United Stat.e~ .Uisl.rkt Court for I.he gast.r.rn Dist.rid n( Ark~nsas, Snsa11 Web her Wrir,hl:, ,J.1 round thnt. di~trict Wt18 a prevnili11g p:ut_y, l:h:it t.l1e parties hn,I agreed l:lrnt clisl:dct would prosecute foe pct.ilions at firm~ pn~vailing 1ntet,, that di~t.rid wonlrl pay tliffcrP.nr:.c bet.ween \\.heir billed ml.rs \"ml \\ltocr.ed~ u.f nny :tU.oi:11cys1 fees award, and 1.hnt I.he p:trtir.~ hnll rnotlifir. cl their n,rrec111c11l. l,t\u0026gt; providP. that ixro11p :ind firm \\\\;ou ld split: ewinly any aw:tnl mncle h_1 the coo rt. I lir,l.rid nppe:ile,1. The Court of Appeals he.lei I.hat: (1) nmouol: of nwanl was neil .her dearly erro1H?.0115 nor ~huM of ,!iscrnl:ion: (2) (i11din1,r l.h:1t. cnt\\- 1-rnd r.xisl.ed hct:wccn clistr id: hnd firm a11d conl.enL\":: of I.Im cont.rnd w:m supported hy I.he e,,idenr.e; and (B) tlisl.ricl: w:is not e::; l: opp,~d 1-(1 dcf~nd :tj{:dn~I: conlP.nl.ion llrnt superin!:cudent had np;recd l.o firm's ptopost, I for r;o;r,o ~plit in aw~rd of :'tU.ornnys' foes . Affirmed. --:..---____ __ _ RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2002 f:t1 -o UC'.' Mn: f~.fl.JI IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT coultl5'rt:,~N 8itf~,trl 1 OFFICE OF EASTER.t\"'\\J DISTRICT OF AR.KAJ.\"'\\JSAS DC Hicr,4Jtt;SA.s DESEGREGATIOH MOHITORIHG WESTERN DIVISION JAM T 2 5 lOO By.- s VV Mccc , '2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL _DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RMA.cic 'L'~F Of: P C(;;;RK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO STAY REDUCTION OF ODM STAFF The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order staying reduction of the - ODM staff, if any, until the final approval of the ODM budget. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. On or about October 14, 2002, Intervenors' counsel learned from an African American staff member of ODM, Ms. Linda Bryant, that she had been given notice of termination as an ODM staff member effective on or about October 15, 2002. Ms. Bryant conveyed to counsel her understanding that her termination was attributable to a directive or requirement of this Couii. 2. Thereafter, in an Order entered on October 16, 2002, this Court recognized that under the law of the case [LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160, 166 (8 1h Cir. 1992)], the pa1iies must have the opportunity for comments and objections prior to final approval of the ODM budget. See Order, para. 3. This Court also wrote that \"no proposed [ODM] budget has yet been submitted .. .. \" Order, para. 4. A. \\j os hua. staymnt -1- 3. The number of ODM staff is a matter encompassed in the ODM budget. 4. In view of the content of the Court's Order of October 16, 2002, it appears that (a) the termination of Ms. Bryant may have resulted from a misunderstanding; (b) alternatively, any actual directive or requirement that Ms. Bryant be te1minated, prior to the completion of the budget-approval process, was inconsistent with the law of the case. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court delay any reduction of ODM staff until final approval of the next ODM budget and declare that it was not the Comi's intention that any reduction in ODM staff take place before final budget approval. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 A: \\joshua.staymnt Respectfully submitted, y' hrr W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 / 'JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (50 l) 3 74-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 Nonh University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663 -9900 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fa~ and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this ';2_ ,;1-/4iay of 62-e,6.i..\u0026amp;.-.\u0026gt;c- 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 A: \\jos hua. staymnt Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3 4 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRNf 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 Jo~;lw. Walker  I_ ., - .) - A.uonz2y at Zc.w 1723 Broad,,vcry Lt..,_,l~ Roe~ ld.7,b:?t.ras ';1206 Te!ephor:e (501) 374-3758 Fr=: (501) 374-418~ .L~\"\u0026lt;{ TR.~\"fSiY.J1SSION COv-:E.R SHEET .... J. Da:ie_ ,- L Io ( J.. c I Zo O --z- 1 .;o.- [ Fa::.. [ $7/-0107) i Re: [ Sender~ (_ YOU S'.!.~OuID R.ECE.:.'i/E [__ __( including cover shee~J] Pd.GE(S), INCLUDING TEJS COvL'?. \u0026amp;\u0026lt;-:.TET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE .tl...LL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The iD:fur.nmion coi.mined.in tlll! fucs;mile =age is a.ttoraeyprivileged.ao.d coufidenti:il .in:formation im:encied only for the use of tb.e indidua! or entity namd above. Tf the re~e: of mis message is not th.e incencied reci-pie!lt, or tb.e e::nployee or ..g~ ~onsibie ,o ~liver re ro dle in:.;;nd.cd. recrpien.:, you are b.e.--eby ll.O~ed ibar my dissetrinarion. c!L-mbunon or copying of 1bis communication is sn-ictly prohibim. if you have received. dris communic:i.tiOll m =r, pies.se i=.ediE.Ie ilOttty us by ,:clepr..one, and return ,he or:ginal me.;sage to us E.! tb.e above address via die U.S. Pesta! Service. T..:lc.llk you.. ---------------------- ~ RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2002 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER FILED E U.S. DISTRICT COURT ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 2 5 2002 ~~Mr-Y~_-s_w=GG'.::~::Q~~::':Q~:.C l!;RK -- ~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Joshua Intervenors' Motion to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff is DENIED because it is moot- please see the Order entered on October 16, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2002. W~0.~- UNITED ST A TESDlSTRICT E THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE (~~~~1~1,j~Q~~~~~.~~ 6 9 2 1N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OCT 3 0 2002 OfFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS JNTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING THE RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C.  455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING Plaintiff Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\") for its Response to Joshua Intervenor's (hereinafter \"Joshua\") Motion for Hearing Regarding the Relevance of 28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceeding states: 1. Joshua's Motion should be denied for failing to comply with the requirement of Local Rule 7.2(a) that all motions be accompanied by a brief consisting of a concise statement of the relevant facts and applicable law. Joshua essentially seeks to obtain discovery from the Court to determine whether grounds for disqualification exist and an advisory opinion as to the applicability of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2). The LRSD knows of no legal authority for Joshua to obtain discovery from the Court. If such legal authority exists, Joshua should include it in a brief as required by Local Rule 7.2(a). It is well-settled that advisory opinions are rarely, if ever, proper in federal litigation. See Order filed Feb. 19, 2002, p. 1 (Docket No. 3576). 2. Joshua's Motion should also be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b). WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be denied; that it be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. F:IHOME\\FENDLEYILRSD 200 1\\unitary-rcsponsc-mot-hcaring-DQ wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on OctoberZr-, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg.  200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENOLEY\\LRS D 200 I \\unitary-response-mot-hearing-DQ. wpd 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL   MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING THE RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C.  455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING I. Joshua Cites No Authority Authorizing the Relief Sought. Joshua essentially seeks to obtain discovery from the Court to determine whether grounds for disqualification exist and an advisory opinion as to the appli,cability of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2). The LRSD knows of no legal authority for Joshua to obtain discovery from the Court. If such legal authority exists, Joshua should include it in a brief as required by Local Rule 7.2(a). It is clear that Joshua has no right to compel discovery from the Court. See Cheeves v. Southern Clays, Inc., 797 F.Supp. 1570, 1580-81 (M.D. Ga. 1992)(\"At the outset, there is simply no precedent for deposing the presiding judge pursuant to compulsory process in aid of motions to disqualify; and, for a number of practical as well as legal and policy considerations, there is no need or justification for such a procedure.\"). It is equally clear that advisory opinions are rarely, if ever, proper in federal litigation. See Order filed Feb. 19, 2002, p. 1 (Docket No. 3576). For these reasons alone, Joshua's Motion should be denied. II. 28 U.S.C.  455. Joshua's Motion should also be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  - 455(a) and (b). Each of these grounds for denial will be discussed in tum below. A. It is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago. The Eighth Circuit has consistently held that motions to disqualify pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b) must be filed in a timely manner. Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir.1992)( claims under 28 U.S.C.  455 must be made in a timely manner); Oglala Sioux  Tribe v. Homestake Mining Co., 722 F.2d 1407, 1414 (8th Cir.1983) (\"Although 455 does not include an explicit time limitation, we believe that a timeliness requirement is appropriate .... \"); United States v. Bauer, 19 F.3d 409, 414 (8th Cir.1994) (\"This court has held that claims under  455 'will not be considered unless timely made.'\") (quoting Holloway). Parties are required to apply for recusal \"at the earliest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating the basis for such a claim,\" Apple v. Jewish Hosp. \u0026amp; Medical Ctr., 829 F.2d 326, 333 (2nd Cir.1987), for two reasons: (1) a prompt application affords the district judge an opportunity to assess its merits, and (2) a prompt application avoids the risk that a party is holding back a recusal motion as a fall-back position in the face of an adverse ruling. See In re International Business Machines Corp., 45 F.3d 641,643 (2nd Cir.1995); accord In re Cargill, Inc., 66 F.3d 1256, 1262-63 (1st Cir.1995) (\"In the real world, recusal motions are sometimes driven more by litigation strategies than by ethical concerns.\"); Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 799 F.2d 1464, 1472 (11th Cir.1986) (\"Counsel, knowing the f    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\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\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_195","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and 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":["2002-10-01"],"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","School integration","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and 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/195"],"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\ne,==- RECEIVED STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 NOV- 7 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT OFFIOCFE FINAL DESEGREGMAOTNIIOTNO RING 1001 - CENTRAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 7 10 212 187 3 0 0 118 121 659 10 5 4 139 166 2 3 0 112 119 551 11 5 3 Ill 108 3 0 0 88 93 412 12 5 5 107 79 0 3 0 0 103 87 389 ss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~TALFOR:CE TRAL 22 22 569 541 8 7 l 421 420 2,012 $j1 I,//\u0026amp; .\nI j-1/ I 002-HALL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 09 6 4 134 154 13 16 0 0 34 33 394 10 2 125 120 15 19 0 0 38 29 349 II 2 120 100 6 18 0 50 ?\" _., 321 12 2 0 107 106 9 7 0 0 18 29 278 ss 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 0 5 19 TOTALFOR:HALL 10 8 490 489 43 60 1 0 145 ll5 1,361 ,,,.. /P-.,, 003 - MANN MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 06 7 5 89 63 3 63 61 294 07 7 3 86 61 3 0 0 78 52 291 08 3 2 79 71 0 4 2 69 42 273 V TOTAL FOR: MANN M/S 17 10 254 195 6 s 2 4 210 155 858 ~~ f .., ~ -'=-\" .,) !OOS- PARKVIEW GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM Wf WM TOTAL! I 09 3 4 75 72 6 2 0 0 78 60 300 10 3 5 79 64 6 6 0 0 76 48 287 II 5 5 73 70 6 0 76 46 283 /4-AL FOR: PARK\"VIEW 12 4 3 77 59 5 0 0 0 62 59 269 15 17 304 265 23 9 0 1 292 213 1.139 ~ ? -=\n-.o. \" LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 28. 2002 Page ! of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 006-BOOKER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 24 29 0 2 0 0 17 21 94 02 0 21 24 2 2 0 22 16 89 03 2 33 28 0 2 0 0 23 19 108 04 0 0 35 24 3 0 0 38 16 117 05 0 0 36 24 0 0 31 20 113 V K 0 0 26 24 0 0 0 24 20 95 OTAL FOR: BOOKER 4 175 153 6 9 0 155 112 616 9.\n?. .,....., J 007 - DUNBAR MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 4 6 75 79 6 6 2 0 42 46 266 07 7 5 71 73 6 5 0 0 33 43 243 ~TAL FOR: DUNBAR M/S 08 7 5 69 64 6 0 32 37 222 18 16 215 216 18 12 3 0 107 126 731 I  , -7./  ,, ~ ~ / [oos-FAIR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 09 0 0 119 136 4 4 3 18 25 310 10 0 0 87 106 2 2 0 32 25 255 11 0 0 80 90 3 0 17 28 220 12 0 0 75 56 2 0 0 0 17 14 164 ss 0 0 9 II 0 0 0 0 0 5 25 TOTAL FOR: FAIR 0 0 370 399 9 9 I 5 84 97 974 7'}\n! ~\n? 1009 - FORST HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF M WF WM TOTAL 06 92 87 3 2 0 0 36 36 258 07 0 106 83 2 0 0 43 33 269 08 0 85 88 2 0 0 43 38 258 SM 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 2 5 19 TOTAL FOR: FORST HTS M/ 1 ! 285 267 8 4 0 0 124 112 804 t\n?1o I .:9,~ ..p LRSD INFORMATIOJ\\' SERVICES DEPT Monda\u0026gt;. October 28. 2002 Page 2 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 010 - PUL HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 59 69 0 0 0 0 36 45 210 07 2 2 71 80 0 0 0 51 44 251 08 0 0 60 57 4 0 43 61 227 SM 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 TOTALF OR:P ULH TSM IS 2 3 191 212 5 1 1 0 131 150 696 .:ts\"8jt' -(oa J ~OJ 011 - SOUTHWST M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 99 100 0 0 0 0 0 6 207 07 0 0 96 98 2 0 0 5 3 205 08 0 0 80 80 2 2 0 0 5 4 173 SM 0 0 5 17 0 0 0 0 0 23 TOTALF OR:S OUTHWSTM IS 280 295 4 4 0 0 10 13 608 q~~ -5\"5 I e, ~o F-MCCLELLA GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM T-OTALI 09 0 0 146 155 3 3 0 0 7 11 325 10 0 0 136 142 3 5 0 0 3 9 298 11 0 0 120 97 0 0 7 9 235 12 0 0 89 92 0 0 0 6 6 194 ss 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 *TALFOR:MCCLELLA 0 0 495 496 7 9 1 0 23 35 1,066v' C/9/ 11 5~ 9:?J~ 013 - HENDERSN MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTA~ 06 81 89 8 13 0 13 12 219 07 0 73 98 6 9 0 17 16 221 08 0 80 83 4 6 0 15 20 210 SM 0 0 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 5 30 ~T ALF OR:H ENDERSNM IS 2 2 240 289 18 28 2 45 53 680 g\ni.9 c/53 1'6 ?8?'., LRSD INFORMATJON SERVJCES DEPT Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 3 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 015 - CLOVR M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 117 114 II 17 0 0 7 7 274 07 0 0 109 134 II 14 0 0 7 9 284 08 0 2 112 114 7 8 0 0 4 7 254 SM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR: CLOVR M/S 0 3 339 363 29 39 0 0 18 23 814.,., ft--\n{ '1 ~ , I 016-MABEL MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 80 76 0 4 0 0 25 35 221 07 0 102 83 3 3 0 18 24 235 08 0 0 71 84 0 15 21 194 SM 0 0 2 JO 0 0 0 2 2 17 TOTAL FOR: MABEL MIS 0 2 255 253 4 8 l 2 60 82 667 -7,7- ,9 I 7 I ...,. 017 - BALE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 18 24 4 0 0 2 SJ 02 0 0 JS 18 2 0 0 0 0 36 03 0 17 22 0 0 0 3 4 48 04 0 0 18 17 0 0 2 40 05 0 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 3 39 EE 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 2 15 K 0 24 23 4 4 0 0 2 59 p 0 0 11 ?.I 14 0 I 0 0 3 p 0 ~ 35\n\"\" TOTAL FOR: BALE 2 2 132 141 13 6 0 12 14 323  e1p :?!1 d-,f' ~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVJCES DEPT Monda). October 28. 200'.! Page 4 or 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 018-BRADY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 25 24 0 0 0 2 53 02 0 0 32 21 0 0 0 2 4 60 03 0 0 17 15 0 0 0 6 40 04 0 0 15 15 2 0 0 2 0 35 05 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 0 5 0 44 EE 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 18 30 0 0 0 3 3 55 p 0 Q_ 5 )0 5 l_ Q_ I Q_ 0 3 '1 4 5 18  TOTAL FOR: BRADY 0 0 132 135 4 4 0 0 23 14 312  gt..?~ _) 5\" -\nz !020 -MCDERMOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 4 13 12 2 0 0 11 15 59 02 2 22 17 2 0 0 9 8 62 03 2 0 14 14 4 4 0 IS II 65 04 0 16 15 3 0 0 0 13 10 58 05 13 16 2 0 0 0 6 6 45 K 4 15 13 0 3 0 0 13 8 57 p 3 0 4 ,, 3 2 o AS o Q 3 l, 3 I! 18 TQTALFOR:MCDERMOT 15 6 97 90 13 11 -r~ 0 70 61 364v' _\nl,.-, / \"'\"' I 021-CARVER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 14 29 0 0 15 20 83 02 0 23 16 0 0 0 IO 27 78 03 0 21 23 0 2 0 0 14 28 89 04 0 20 32 0 2 0 13 18 87 05 0 0 20 24 0 0 0 0 15 22 81 K 3 22 17 2 2 0 12 15 75 TOTAL FOR: CARVER 3 7 120 141 3 6 3 79 130 493V 9-l. I\n\"\\ ..., ~~1 ,:?\" LRSD INFORMt\u0026gt;.TJONSE RVJCESD EPT Monday. October 28. 2002 Page 5 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 022 - BASELINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 26 15 0 0 0 3 0 45 02 0 0 20 18 0 0 3 3 46 03 0 0 23 16 0 0 0 3 2 45 04 0 0 22 14 0 0 2 41 05 0 0 16 20 0 3 0 0 4 2 45 EE 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 K 0 0 17 19 0 0 2 0 40 p _o_ .ll.:~3 0 Q ?n 3 r. 4 32 / TOTAL FOR: BASELINE 0 137 116 5 5 2 19 13 299 / 7. ,:\n:j ~ 023 - FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 17 8 0 0 0 0 4 3 32 02 0 0 18 13 0 0 0 0 3 3 37 03 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 5 7 38 04 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 19 05 0 0 14 7 0 0 0 0 s 2 28 K 0 0 17 18 0 0 0 2 2 40 p __ 2 15 ~-:\nJ 2 0 0 .3J)_ _l) A 'z -.5 t11 36 / TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 2 104 75 0 0 0 23 24 230 / ?J/. 1024 - FORST PK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 9 12 0 0 0 19 24 68 02 0 2 8 11 0 0 0 0 7 15 43 03 0 2 8 12 0 0 0 10 11 44 04 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 17 14 48 05 0 9 8 0 0 0 0 16 16 50 K 2 2 5 5 0 0 19 25 60 L---!l--- --0-- , ~J)_ .....Q__\u0026lt;LQ._Q... ..Q_ - 15 8 :,. 7. 17 / TOTAL FOR: FORST PK 4 8 48 58 3 0 0 95 113 330 / ~\"?f\u0026gt; ''-' I~ ,\nLRSD INFORJ\\1AT JON SERVICESD EPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 6 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 025 - FRANKLIN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 02 0 31 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 03 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 0 0 46 04 0 0 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 05 0 0 28 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 EE 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 13 K 0 19 37 0 0 0 0 2 60 p 0 0 285~24 0 0 0 0 0 l a-1 1.\u0026amp;7s4 __ TOTALFO~ 2 0 178 188 0 0 0 3 3 375 / 1 g70 ~~~ .3 (, 027 - GIBBS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 16 8 0 0 0 0 9 12 46 02 0 2 18 14 0 13 14 64 03 17 16 2 0 0 17 10 65 04 0 11 12 0 0 0 ll ]] 47 05 0 0 13 13 0 0 12 7 47 /4L FOR:G IBBS K 0 2 10 10 0 0 0 0 9 9 40 2 6 85 73 4 4 1 0 71 1~1 309  \u0026amp;\"/lo 1~\"6 11 028-CHICOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 32 21 3 6 0 0 5 3 70 02 0 0 21 29 9 8 0 4 3 75 03 0 0 29 25 6 9 0 0 3 2 74 04 2 0 17 34 2 4 0 0 3 5 67 05 0 24 32 6 6 0 0 2 4 75 EE 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 5 18 K 0 0 25 39 4 7 0 0 2 3 80 p 0 0 13\n).\u0026amp;\\5 Q 2 ~ 0 0 0 C\u0026gt; 0 111 36  TOTAL FOR: CHICOT 2 164 200 36 43 0 23 25 495  ?~1i\u0026gt; j,\u0026amp;1 i.3 -1i LRSD INFORMATJON SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 7 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 029 - WEST HIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 16 0 0 0 8 2 49 02 0 0 10 19 0 2 0 0 6 4 41 03 0 0 17 21 2 0 0 0 4 5 49 04 0 0 25 14 0 2 0 0 5 4 50 05 0 13 15 0 0 0 0 s 0 34 K 0 0 15 18 0 0 0 0 s 39 p 0 Q_ 0 12 _Q_ 0 2 -1 2 1v,. 18 / TOTALF ORW: ESTH IL 0 107 112 2 5 0 0 35 18 280  .. ~ Q' :::\u0026gt; \"'5/J 030 - JEFFRSN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 10 IO 0 0 0 18 12 53 02 0 0 15 II 0 0 0 0 19 18 63 03 0 15 14 0 0 0 0 20 19 69 04 0 0 25 II 0 0 0 0 14 18 68 05 0 9 18 0 0 0 28 20 77 EE 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 15 17 0 0 0 0 14 14 60 p _o_ Q_ I I 0 JL D D 0 0 5 1112 i.t.7 18 - TOTALF ORJ: EFFRSN 3 91r 87 0 0 118 113 415  ../6?. \" 1031 - CLOVR EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 21 29 6 3 0 0 61 02 0 0 30 31 4 4 0 0 2 72 03 0 0 24 26 2 0 0 0 4 57 04 0 0 21 24 2 5 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 23 25 0 5 0 0 0 2 55 K 0 0 28 38 4 7 0 0 2 80 p 0 0 11'9/)19 3_.)L o 0 0 _/_J -~'~,o 35 / TOTAL FOR: CLOVR EL 0 0 158 192 19 27 I 0 4 11 412  3t- f1\n5 '-3'~ LRSD INFORM.AT.I ON SERVICESD EPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 8 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 6 14 0 0 4 3 29 02 0 0 9 9 3 0 0 0 8 34 03 0 0 15 6 0 0 0 12 35 04 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 2 18 05 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 2 4 16 EE 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 10 K 0 0 14 11 4 0 0 4 6 40 p 0 Q_ 11 $. 2... {L ~ 0 0 2.5 ..3 \u0026lt;.e_t718 / TOTALF OR:D ODD 0 0 59 64 12 3 0 0 32 30 200 ~::\u0026gt;-7. . I :::I 1- t~ 1033 - MEADCLIF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 18 12 2 3 0 0 4 7 47 02 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 5 3 50 03 0 13 16 3 0 0 7 5 46 04 0 0 20 11 4 0 0 0 8 4 47 05 0 0 22 14 2 2 0 0 2 43 K 0 0 22 26 0 0 0 5 6 60 0 0 IQ f~ 6 ~ 2 ..J Q_ Q 2 3 5,.,,jo 28 / TOTALF OR:M EADCLIF 120 111 17 9 0 0 33 29 321 / 73--?-i ~cl ~Q' I .) LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monda). October ~8. 2002 Page 9 of I 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 034 - MITCHELL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 19 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 02 0 0 24 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 03 0 0 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 0 0 22 19 0 0 0 0 43 OS 0 0 25 20 0 0 0 0 2 48 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 27 11 0 0 0 0 0 39 p 0 0 8 f?S IQ Q 0 C\u0026gt; 0 0 Q 0 Q 1~2-18/ TOTALF OR~:\n:) 0 0 151 125 2 0 0 0 4 2 284/ 97~ 77(., ~ (.p 035-MLKING GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 18 19 0 0 0 25 13 77 02 2 15 24 0 0 21 15 80 03 3 2 19 21 0 21 14 83 04 22 23 0 20 18 88 05 0 20 17 2 0 0 0 9 13 62 K 0 4 23 23 0 2 0 21 22 96 p 3 3 20 ~~13 Q Q (., 0 Q_ 1s~ 0 1s ~[-tl-69v ,OTAL FOR: ML KING IO 12 137 140 5 5 2 2 132 110 555V ~77 3(,, d(..\n/~ ol, 036 -ROCKFELR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 15 20 2 0 0 0 13 14 64 02 0 0 18 17 0 0 0 0 8 7 50 t~$r'?) 03 0 0 26 13 3 0 0 7 7 57 04 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 8 6 45 05 0 0 20 J 8 0 2 0 0 8 IO 58 K 0 16 17 2 0 0 10 ll 58 p 2 4 22 ,j_j_ ?? Q 0 ~ 2 21,j~ 22 \u0026gt;(l,'?, 96/ *OTAL FOR: E~  2 5 132 122 5 7 2 75 77 428 ~Q.,._ ,.p_:)- JSc,)....J 11- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 10 of 17 hL 1/Jrk,n~-- 3/io/~ ~.,~,.d- :th /4iL .J/ r olt\u0026gt;~ ,H.o\" +I I f\n)t1w~I/ ~u e \"\"' ?If' 0. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 037- GEYER SP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 13 0 3 0 0 3 3 38 02 0 0 26 21 0 0 0 50 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 2 2 47 04 0 0 25 17 0 0 3 4 51 05 0 0 16 27 0 4 0 0 0 48 K 0 0 25 14 0 0 0 0 0 40 p Q 0 l6~0I~ 2 2 ....\nQ Q o D o \u0026lt;{,'?6 o 34 / TOTALFOR:GEYERSP 0 0 147 124 6 12 0 0 10 9 308-:/ gg?o ~1/ I~ (1 038-PULHTE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 0 12 13 46 02 2 8 0 0 0 0 11 11 41 03 11 13 0 0 0 0 12 6 44 04 0 ]I 11 0 0 0 0 13 16 52 05 0 0 ]I 12 0 0 0 0 JO 9 42 K 0 JO 10 0 0 0 0 9 9 39 p 0 2 4 ~ 4 0 I _3 0 0 2 7 2 .']_)/1, V TOTALF OR:P ULH TE 4 5 65, ~ ~9 0 1 0 0 72 66 282 ..yglo /C /:!, ~ 039 - RIGHTSEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 21 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 02 0 0 20 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 0 0 26 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 05 0 0 25 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 K 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 p 0 Q 1s P'F 1s 0 0 0 0 0 o o _Q_J__,:~:\u0026gt;'r~ TOTALFOe~ 0 0 153 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 / Jt}f)(o ~13 0 0 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 11 of l 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 040-ROMINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 12 8 5 0 0 6 4 36 02 0 0 12 15 5 0 0 5 4 42 03 0 JO 18 2 2 0 2 2 38 04 0 13 8 3 0 0 3 30 05 0 0 8 11 4 0 0 3 6 37 EE 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 K 0 14 17 4 4 0 5 7 53 e J'l (~ 5 1 2 1 0 0 4 I/ 7 #\u0026gt;!- 36  TOTA L FOR: ROMINE 3 2 83 94 16 26 2 0 28 35 2891 ~17' 171 ~1 G.3 041 - STEPHENS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 45 47 3 2 0 0 2 100 02 0 0 35 37 0 0 0 75 03 0 0 45 40 0 5 0 0 2 0 92 04 0 0 38 27 2 2 0 0 0 0 69 05 0 0 37 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 EE 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 12 K 0 0 43 34 0 0 0 0 2 80 e Q Q 752_/ 26 0 I o 0 0 ,\nL, 2 q-11. 54 TOTAL FOR:~ ~,.. 0 271 261 6 10 1 0 7 9 c:6 q!?o 5~?- I~ /lt' LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 12 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 042 - WASHNGTN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 0 28 24 3 0 0 6 3 67 02 2 3 17 19 7 5 0 0 7 8 68 03 2 0 15 24 4 0 0 6 53 04 21 18 7 2 0 0 7 13 70 05 17 21 5 7 0 0 4 8 64 EE 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 16 K 3 3 22 22 3 2 0 0 10 6 71 ~AL FOR, WASHNGTN p 2 _Q_ _.L(L 'u A _i_j _l_ 0 1. ,~ 12 2 54 / 13 9 136 152 33 19 0 49 51 463 (p,\n\u0026gt;-~ A~i 70 /t, c\u0026gt; 043 - WILLIAMS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 0 17 15 64 02 4 18 13 0 0 0 0 14 13 63 03 3 6 29 16 0 0 13 19 88 04 2 6 18 28 0 0 0 0 18 18 90 05 3 6 25 23 0 0 0 0 13 25 95 0oTAL FOR: WILLIAMS K 2 19 1~ 0 0 0 0 8 18 60 13 21 122 lll 0 0 83 108 460/ 7e .A,., 3 .:5., 0 1044 - WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 01 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 2 37 02 0 17 28 0 0 0 0 0 2 48 03 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 43 04 0 0 17 15 2 0 0 0 0 35 05 0 14 18 0 0 0 2 0 36 EE 0 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 22 K 0 0 20 16 2 0 0 0 40 l'_ _()_ 0 2 15 j_ ~ L _J -0- _a_ _Q_ /_1_ \"ilf  17  278 TOTAL FOR: WlL 01' 2 ]13 140 5 4 0 5 7 /1 .., ~ I :\n)_, I . LRSD INFORMATlON SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Pagel3of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 045 - WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 20 0 0 0 4 48 02 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 0 3 35 03 0 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 40 04 0 0 22 12 0 0 0 0 0 35 05 0 0 22 17 0 0 0 0 2 42 K 0 0 19 14 0 0 0 0 4 3 40 p 0 0 14~q 15 Q._ 0--12 0- 3 (L__3_ ~ 7 35 / TOTAL FOR: WOODRUFF 0 0 134 112 0 0 0 2 14 13 m-/ 37 /2- ..\n?~ ~ ~, 046 - MABEL EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 17 0 2 0 0 2 38 02 0 0 17 II 0 0 6 0 36 03 0 0 9 16 2 0 0 4 6 38 04 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 35 05 0 0 17 12 0 0 0 0 7 41 EE 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 10 K 0 16 17 0 0 0 0 2 3 39 p 0 0 s 1/ 6 0 Q OQ _lL 3 \" 4 lt/i y TOTALFOR:MABELEL 0 103 94 3 4 0 0 27 23 255 IV 77 ~ ,9~ Q ~ 1047-TERRY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 4 7 22 29 2 4 0 0 17 15 100 02 2 21 19 3 0 0 13 12 72 03 5 0 19 17 4 2 0 0 19 14 80 04 0 21 19 3 2 0 0 12 13 71 05 2 25 20 0 3 0 0 15 13 79 K 6 3 28 22 6 0 0 16 15 97 p 2 2 4 '1 5 0 0 0 0 I ~ 3 ~\"' 18 ./' TOTAL FOR: TERRY 20 16 140 131 17 15 0 0 93 85 517 -':\u0026gt; ~l- ~'1/ e,,'5 1?0 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 14 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 048 - FULBRIGH GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 27 33 89 02 2 0 12 s 0 0 0 0 11 37 67 03 0 14 18 0 0 0 23 15 72 04 0 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 18 20 76 OS 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 16 21 69 EE 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 K 3 2 10 18 0 0 18 24 77 p 0 2 3 I 0 0 I 0 0 s Ii 6 177. 18  TOTAL FOR: FULBRIGH 6 3 85 94 2 0 123 158 474  ~'6i'v !'?Cj I 050 - OTTER CR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 23 23 0 0 0 0 11 16 74 02 0 16 22 2 0 0 0 14 10 65 03 0 26 17 0 0 ll 12 69 04 0 17 17 0 0 0 16 14 66 05 0 0 13 21 0 0 0 10 11 56 K 0 2 24 21 0 0 13 17 79 p 2 _Q_ 2 .ts 3 o.3 0 0 4 /0 6 fil 18 / TOTAL FOR: OTTER CR 4 4 121 124 6 3 0 0 79 86 427/ 5\"?,le ~/6\n7 /46 051 - W AKEFIEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 18 3 2 0 0 0 40 02 0 0 24 I 8 6 7 0 0 0 56 03 0 0 19 18 0 2 0 0 0 3 42 04 0 0 26 23 2 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 30 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 50 K 0 0 ?_\", 28 7 0 ~ 0 69 TOTAL FOR: WAKEFfEL 0 0 138 123 19 21 0 2 2 4 309v tl- ~~( ..\n/::J-.-\n~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28. 2002 Page 15 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 052- WATSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 40 42 0 0 0 85 02 0 0 36 30 2 0 0 0 0 69 03 0 0 34 31 0 3 0 0 2 73 04 0 0 44 36 0 0 0 0 82 05 0 0 22 30 0 0 0 2 56 K 0 0 29 45 2 2 0 0 0 2 80 :e 0 Q ]!!~ 021 0 l o 0 0 c) 0 . ,171. 36 / TOTAL FOR: WATSON 0 0 219 235 7 7 /}/ 0 6 7 481/ 9-'l?o I~ 725-AGENCY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 03 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 04 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 07 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 II 08 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 13 09 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 IO 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 2 15 11 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALFOR:AGENCY 0 0 16 59 0 0 0 0 7 JO 92 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 16 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 766-ALC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 07 0 0 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 23 08 0 0 4 .z../011 0 0 .P0- -, 0 0 0 0 Ji\nu 95?. 09 0 0 9 24 0 0 0 0 0 34 IO 0 0 4 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 II 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 TOTAL FOR: ALC\nI .. J:. 0 0 25 74 0 0 103 \" a/I D _?---- t I 97~ I 1767-ACCL P GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL\\ I 09 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 10 IO 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 22 JI 0 0 30 25 0 0 0 3 8 67 12 0 0 47 31 0 0 0 6 IO 95 TOTAL FOR: ACC LP 0 0 92 64 2 0 0 12 23 194 7. 1- ,:3 '3' GRA DTOTAL: 207 201 8777 8809 455 471 30 27 3294 3251 25,522 t\n:/,,, j --,=--..,..,.._/ 2?,t. 8'o/ ~o/ d),_\n1~'7 ~7.\n1,3 t\n'J~ /?l,p,_/,. ~./ 1\u0026lt;t1 P,'J\nL 1 -1/1 t[, fp~ 71?- ~,../~ /t~ /.,/ .,iiP$~ :5\u0026lt;?~ /) 88.\nL, c.f{, 1 {,~fl , . .::::,. .\n), ~)J~ \u0026lt;3/' is71 ~- \"B1 j,~IP{ /~1o1 t? ---r,-,,,..,/::\n, ~1lP -r\n,..\nl7i~tl\n) 9-CIJ t.~~g- ~.i\nao (,? 7,, ff~ t.,\n) I ,P 8~ ~-g\n.:\nr~tt ~(p~ LRSD INFORMATJON SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 17 of 17 1,95/ ( I General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 ,\n1 Count results for 2002-2003 for Districts: liiiiiii:iiiit@iittiiiii@ii TERMS:  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_ enr. cgi ?year=2002\u0026amp;data _level=district\u0026amp;distname=600... 1/27/2003 01/08/2003 11:27 Tuniow Babbs 4.ssociate Superintendent lulie Wiedower Director- Dates to Remember: Nov. 27-28-29 Thanbg1vmg . Holiday Nov. 10 PTA Council Brady Elementaxy 11:30 501-324-2281 Nov. 19 School Board Meeting Dec. 23-Jan. 3 Winttt Vacation Jan. 6 Classes Resume Jan. 14 PTA Council Dunbar Middle 11:30 Jan. 17 Teacher Records Day Students Out Jan. 20 King Holiday Students Out Jan. 22-24 \"Check Us Out'' in all schools 9 am to 1:30 pm Jan.17-Feb.7,2003 Registration for 2003-04 Items Needed For Registration: Birth Certificate Social Security Number Proof of Address LR SD SRO PAGE: 01/02 UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Registration Office 501 Shennan Streei, Little Rock, 4.R 72202 501-447-2950 www.lrsd.org FAX COVER SHEET 501-447-2951 To:_....i..,L..-C?\u0026lt;Wj=-----+--- FaxNumber: 3 / / -O { 0 0 From:_----+-Q------\"A!_'=-WV\\\"\"-=-~-Q__,,i-=-Date:_. _ _.i_/_---=[f_-_0_3_ # Pages Including Cover Sheet: d' Re: ------------------------ cc: _______________________ _ 01/08/2003 11:27 501-324-2281 LR SD SRO Little Rock Schoof District 2002-2003 Capacities 2002-2003 Cape\u0026lt;:i\\let SCHOOi.. Capaciti C6ntraH1S + FairHs____ 122200(0 Hall HS ----1300 includes portables McC/e/lBHt1S 14-40\"i ncludes annex PeriMewM\u0026amp;g~ 1200 Sub-Total 7340 CloverdalMe iddle ~150 DvnbBMl iddle 780 F0tesHt eightMs iddleI -~ Hend9fSoMn iddle -r 960 Msb6t,taMlei ddl9 600 Mell/MI iddle 900 PulaskHi eightsM id\u0026lt;llo 750 SouthwesMt iddle 750 Sub-Total 0270 -----1 Bele:,_ _____ +- _ 383 Base/Jne I 3ro aoo1re, -~~ Brady ' ,09 Carver m Cllicot --~ 509 c~1~=J  -~ Dod_d_ _  27J_ FeirP~--=t~ ForestP 9rk , 400 Triinkfln 532 1-F_u\n_1_J_n_g_-\"--_h_l 49 358 _1 GgyerS pring$ Gibbs 324 ~rson -~ King i 715 ~elyal\u0026amp; -IT. 443 McDermott 453 MeedoWcliff f 358 Mitchell --~ OtterC1'891( +~ ~Heighls- '---~ Righlsell ---r 296 Rockefe~ --r-481  P1 - 5th Grade --- 403 Stephens '--~~ Terry I 597  ,ncludei\nportables Wakefleld I 395 utthzing Badgett Gita includes portables W\u0026amp;shingto,1 I 678 '-------~- Wstson t- 534 WestemH ills 370 ~:\ns=-+ : ~ -- --m Sub-Total 15015 Grand Total 28$25 PAGE 02/02 1/lliOJ LEA: 6002050 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT:'. N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE: 1 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 561 Bi 41 181 251 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL I 5 6 I 9 I 9 I 16 I 2 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 511 61 61 231 161 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL I 50 I 71 6 I 20 I 14 I 2 I 11 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL I 621 131 91 161 24 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL I 51 I 10 I 9 I 22 I 10 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 B ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL I 3261 531 431 ll51 llll 31 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 0 I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- /(. x'~4- -y' \u0026amp;-r\u0026gt; 7,. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING J.,EA: 6002053 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BELWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 2 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 281 31 31 121 101 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 2 5 I 5 I 2 I 6 I 11 I O I 1 I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 20 I 51 3 I 5 I 71 0 I O I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 20 I 31 4 I 9 I 4 I O I OI O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 371 71 41 131 111 01 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 5 ENROLLI 18 I 4 I 4 I 7 I 3 I O I O I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI OI O I OI O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1491 271 201 521 471 01 31 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ..\u0026gt;/7 n 3 ~~,-/4 Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002054 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 3 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BOONEP ARK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLb\nS9~1 s .11 1111~,1 1so1 1.-1 01 01 01 01 o ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 62 I 4 I 2 I 2 9 I 2 6 I O I 11 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 761 31 21 331 361 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 761 31 01 251 471 01 01 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 581 31 11 241 291 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 521 11 11 251 251 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 72 I 3 I 3 I 33 I 311 2 I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3961 171 91 1691 1941 31 31 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+.-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- -jl.5:5. ~.:)..., ~er s fl ~/ ?~ Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y .LEA: 6002055 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 4 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: CRESTWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL !GRADEi I TOTAL! I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ !AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 551 161 181 151 61 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 101 51 51 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 711 2 5 I 2 6 I 14 I 6 I O I OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 581 211 181 101 91 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 4 9 I 15 I 14 I 111 8 I O I OI OI O I 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 481 131 211 Bi 61 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 11 0 I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 50 I 151 131 10 I 111 0 I O I 11 0 I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! Oi 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 3311 1051 1101 681 461 01 01 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 13 I 6 I 7 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+--:::\n-16---+-----:\n7--+-----~--+---~:_\n-\n,--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y _LEA: 600205 6 PAGE: 5 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYS CHOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 2 4 I 6 I 1 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 2 9 I 5 I 5 I 10 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 351 21  31 171 13 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 311 31 31 131 12 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 28 I 11 51 14 I 8 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 36 I 4 I 21 18 I 121 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1831 211 191 801 631 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ...yo /- 2' o 7/f/o Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002057 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 6 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 77 I 27 I 281 10 I 10 I 0 I 11 0 I 11 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 13 I 6 I 6 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 7 0 I 2 6 I 2 4 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 751 241 301 71 111 01 01 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 11 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 661 251 261 81 61 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 7 5 I 2 9 I 2 5 I 10 I 7 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 2 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 661 211 281 61 101 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 21 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4291 1521 1611 491 531 11 41 41 51 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 201 101 91 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+---_:\n3--+----/~:\nL.-+-----+\n7+--- ~+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y :LEA: 6002058 PAGE: 7 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 \\GRADE\\ \\TOTAL\\ I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ \\AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC \\PACIFIC ISL\\ALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL\\ 60\\ 24\\ 26\\ 3\\ 6\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 54 I 14 I 20 I 11 I 7 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL\\ 55\\ 221 14\\ 9\\ 7\\ 1\\ 11 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL I 4 9 I 17 I 9 I 11 I 8 I 2 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL\\ 421 13\\ 12\\ 131 3\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 11 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL\\ 53\\ 16\\ 15\\ 71 11\\ 1\\ 3\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 01 0\\ 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL\\ 3131 106\\ 96\\ 541 421 7\\ 61 11 1\\ 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 01 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~0_\n2..-, 9C'r /6 ,4/?.. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ~EA: 6002059 PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 8 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt404 ~~\n~~~~:~~~~~:~~\n:\n:~~~~:~~\n~~~:::::~__pl~--~_!:'~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~ I GRADEi ITOTALI I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI O I O I OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI O I OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 6591 1151 1121 1921 2131 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 6591 1151 1121 1921 2131 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~~7 -\u0026lt;105 ~ '\"I c\n./7, Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002060 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 9 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 4 3 I 3 I 2 I 21 I 1 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 561 51 41 161 301 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 531 31 4 I 27 I 1 7 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 661 21 61 261 311 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 631 91 4 I 251 251 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 521 61 91 131 241 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3331 281 291 1281 1441 41 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 0 I 0 I 2 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+--- c:57 --+--- ~7~ +----y ---+- g-_\ni~ ----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002061 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: MEADOWPA RK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 10 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 2 6 I 4 I 4 I 11 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 351 31 51 101 171 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 251 3 I 3 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 11 1 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 3 ENROLLI 21 I 0 I 0 I 8 I 12 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 261 31 31 71 131 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 24 I 4 I 4 I 9 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1571 171 191 531 651 11 01 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- -34, 118 ..3 ?~,/4 Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ,LEA: 6002063 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 11 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NO. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 651 Bl 71 161 181 31 131 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 671 81 71 171 191 101 61 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 711 61 101 221 181 Bl 71 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 82 I 19 I 12 I 13 I 18 I 13 I 71 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----. +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 87 I 111 121 22 I 251 111 61 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 791 131 131 201 231 71 21 01 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4511 651 611 1101 1211 521 411 01 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- /.\n? ~ ~.31 7~ I?. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002064 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 12 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi ITOTALI I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 351 91 71 81 111 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 38 I 12 I 8 I 8 I 10 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 38 I 9 I 4 I 14 I 11 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 381 51 101 101 121 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 4 2 I 11 I 7 I 14 I 8 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 561 111 111 181 151 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 2471 571 471 721 671 21 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+----10 -+----\n/ic/--+------ ---+--~~--\n,~--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ):,EA: 6002065 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 13 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 561 121 41 231 151 21 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 501 111 111 171 101 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----~-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 411 61 61 131 161 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 551 101 101 201 141 01 01 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 641 91 111 211 201 01 21 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 451 71 121 111 141 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3111 551 541 1051 891 31 31 21 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+----/-\n1--+---:\nw--+-----~---+---~~\u0026gt;=--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y t'EA: 6002069 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEM. SCHOOL PAGE: 14 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 4 2 I 0 I 0 I 21 I 21 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 441 01 11 231 201 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 501 01 11 261 231 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 481 21 11 211 241 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 53 I 2 I 2 I 25 I 24 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 571 61 41 271 201 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 2941 101 91 1431 1321 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- / 1 _\n\u0026gt;?5 0 9-Y' Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y -r. 0 -1,o 95 .LEA: 6002070 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOODM IDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 15 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE M I F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--. --+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 2741 771 881 581 471 11 11 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 711 261 421 01 11 01 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 3021 901 1011 621 431 21 21 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 61 21 31 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5761 1671 1891 1201 901 31 31 21 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- +-----+---- +-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 771 281 451 01 11 11 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~~ ~10 /0 ~ts,?, Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN2 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING EA: 6002072 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 16 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK M ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 3 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 288 I 381 381 104 I 90 I 111 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 3011 471 381 1101 951 61 41 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5891 851 761 2141 1851 171 111 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+--- / ~ r --+-- ~9...-.-+,- -- ~ 1---+- c:8. '?-----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ,LEA: 600207 5 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 17 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt404 ~~~~~~~~~~1@:~\n,/4:?~,\n,t:a,:.1.D ___________ RuN~Yi~~~s\n~~~\n/~~~~1 I GRADEi ITOTALI I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI /$~I /ll ~I \u0026amp;-'/6'1 4,01 ~I ~I 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLl/34'1 /-(fl -..e-1 ~~I ~I ~1-1 ~0'1 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+--- -5' ----+--- /~?---+--?----+ ,9..d/4 ----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002077 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 19 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 3 I 11 0 I 1 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 11 7 I 7 I 7 I 54 I 4 7 I 0 I 0 I 11 11 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 1221 101 111 591 421 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 o9\n~\n~~~7--\n~---~:7---~,7--~~~7---\n7----\n7----\n7----~7----~7----\n------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~-5 3 8 .\n?05 d).-' ?i-.Yi\".. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002077 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL-(7,::-,,J-,f. PAGE: 38 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 9 ENROLLI 3 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0i 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I  0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 31 11 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** ~EA: 6002075 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM PAGE: 36 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST CAMPUS !GRADEi I TOTAL! I M WHITE F M BLACK F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 7121 1561 1611 1941 1741 151 lll 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 61 31 21 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 609! 1451 1341 1711 139! 71 61 31 21 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! lll Si Si 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI O I OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI O I OI OI O I O I OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! Oi 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 13211 301! 295! 365! 313! 221 171 31 21 11 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 7 I 8 I 7 I 11 11 0 I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- d59\u0026lt;\no ?75\" ~7 d/?. ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATES! 01 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** LEA: 6002076 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST CAMPUS PAGE: 37 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 251 41 11 131 51 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 1301 211 121 561 351 21 41 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLL! 5721 1291 1691 1211 1421 21 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 81 171 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 5841 1511 1461 1121 1631 31 31 11 31 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 31 11 21 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----.+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI OJ O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 13111 3051 3281 3021 3451 81 141 31 41 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 291 91 191 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- \u0026amp;33- \u0026lt;\n4,7 ~/ -Y'??.. ****************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- GRADUATEIS 508 I 1391 1221 94 I 128 I 51 91 31 61 11 1 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- ****************************************************************************** 0, -t7ol LEA: 6002000 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY DISTRICT PAGE: 1 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY DISTRICT ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt304 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE: 10/15/2002 :=~~~~~---~.\u0026amp;-/ ------------------------------------~~~~-=~~==~~~~~-~=~~~ I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ I HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 6291 1241 1061 1951 1811 71 151 01 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 121 111 11 11 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 6711 1261 1241 1891 2061 141 101 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 0 I 2 I O I 0 I O I O I O I O I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 6481 1101 1021 2061 2041 111 81 41 21 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 6 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 6331 1111 1021 1941 1921 191 131 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 01 11 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 6791 1221 1161 2131 1991 131 111 21 31 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 6591 1201 1271 2011 1911 121 61 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 2 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 6631 1161 1121 1931 2151 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 6791 1221 1331 2161 1841 121 81 21 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 711 261 421 01 11 01 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 7251 1471 1501 2311 1801 81 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 7 I 3 I . 3 J O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------~36--~9+-~+-4\u0026amp;8\"+-~+--~+--_:jt+---4,-+---(\n.+----l-+----+---- ~~~~~~!-::~!-=~=}1-=~~.-\n=, 12 1:~!- 1=-~---=-=~\n1,l-!- --~1----=+---- ---=~~=1.=.\n~\n~~--t-li~i--1-7---~-ti~~1----1=~?.-~1----1~----~+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFFIOCEF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO ,. LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y DISTRICT SCHOOL CHOICE BY DISTRICT ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 2 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: SIS: rpt304 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:40 !GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F I I HISPANIC M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 7401 1611 1631 2081 1791 161 121 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 6 I 31 2 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 7391 1661 1461 2271 1741 91 101 31 21 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 111 51 51 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 5721 1291 1691 1211 1421 21 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 Bl 171 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 5841 1511 1461 1121 1631 31 31 11 31 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 11 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 26351 6071 6241 6681 6581 301 311 61 61 11 4 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 461 171 261 11 11 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBER OF GRADUATES FOR PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 5081 1391 1221 941 1281 51 91 31 61 11 1 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ' ..  General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 2 Count results for 2002-2003 for Districts: NORTH LITTLE ROCK (6002) B African African Asian Asian Hispanic Hispanic Native Native White White American American American American ITotall Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female ~II 189 II 206 II=:DI 1 14 10 0 II 0 11~1 124 II~ ~II 206 II 204 11~1 2 11 8 0 II 1 11~1 102 116481 ~I 194 II 192 II=:DI 0 19 13 1 II 0 II :DTII 102 116331 ~JI 213 199 IIJJI 3 13 11 0 II 0 II }fill 116 116191 ~II 201 191 II=:DI 0 12 6 1 II 0 11~1 127 116591 ~II 193 215 II=:DI 0 11 13 2 II 0 ll:DIJI 112 116631 ~II 216 184 IIJJI 2 12 8 0 II 0 ll}fill 133 116791 ~II 231 180 IIJJI 1 8 6 0 II 0 1[2]1 150 111251 ~II 208 I 179 I0:JI 0 16 12 0 II 1 ll2illl 163 11140 I ~II 227 II 174 IOJI 2 9 10 1 II 1 11~1 146 117391 ~II 121 II 142 I1-=:DI 1 2 6 0 II 0 11~1 169 115121 DIii 112 II 163 [TI! 3 3 3 0 II 2 11~1 146 II5s41 ~II 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 I 0 ll~I 0 10 ~II 195 II 181 11~1 1 7 15 0 0 IIEDI 106 II 629I ~II 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 0 IL~! 0 II~ ~JI 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 0 11~1 0 10 I Total JI 2506 II 2410 lc:fill 16 I 137 121 5 5 111105111 696 1is6211 ,I Nov 22 02 U9:05a facsimile1 rans111ittal ,o: Margie Powell Fax: From: Hobby J. Acklin Date: Re: 2002-2003 Buiiding Capi1eities Pages: CC: 0 Urgent 0 FocReview D Please Comment Notes: 5017718001 Bobhy J. Acl.1111 Norlh Little Rock School D1stnct 21U\\l Popiar Slrcei l'.O.B-m\\6\u0026amp;1 North Little Rock, AR 72 I 15-0687 501-77180S0 Fax: 501-771-8001 371-0100 J 1/22/02 3 D Please Reply 0 Please Recyci p. 1  .. ,.~,,. , Nov 22 02 U9:U~a NLRSD Student AFFa1rs Building Capacities 2002-2003 5017718001 I Location I Building Capacity I West j 1354 I East 11254 1-akewood Middie 1583 , R1dgeroad Middle j 638 i Rose City tvfiddle ! 4 34 I Poplar Street Middle i 752 I Argenta Academy I 1 iO i I Amboy Elementary 1379 j Belwood Elementary I 227 I I Boone Park Eiementary 1 468 i1c_r_e__smrn__o~_ d_E__e_l_e _tn_--m~ _ ry-:_~._-_-_-_-_-_-_-\n1_3-=_s-=_o-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_~-=Gienview Elementary ! 225 I II Indian Hills Elementary j 457 I _ Lakewood Elementary 1319 I I Lvnch Drive Elementary I 455 I I rvieadow Park Elementary 1208 I ! North Heights Elementary -f ?_0___4_ ______ ----1 I n~-1- U~ll Cl,-m-=-n+\u0026lt;\u0026gt;n, ? 0 2 11 ail'.. .1UU .l...,J.\"J. \u0026lt;vu~..._.J 1 _\u0026lt;'.'\\ I Pike View Elementary I 362 ~ I Seventh Street Elem_,en_,__t__ ary -+!-4__3__ ~0 ---=-==-------p-:0--,~-. p.2 ' Nov 22 02 0S:0ba NLRSD Student RFFa1rs 5017718001 p.3 2002-2003 School Building Capacity REDWOOD (without portable) CURRENT USE ONLY-ACTUAL CAPACITY NOT CALCULATED STEP 1- Identity each room by use and capacity. 6 Pre K X 18 = 108 RECEIVED  North Little Rock School District Employees 0~~2 2 2002 Pupil Enrollment by School October 1, 2002 Amboy Elementary Belwood Elen:-ientary 1 Boone Park Elementary  Crestwood Elementary Glenview Elementary Indian Hills Elementary IIL akewood Elementary IL ynch Drive Elementary Meadow Park Elementary I !North Heights Elementary 1 j Park Hill Elementary I Pike View Elementary I Seventh Street Fine Arts 11 Poplar Street Middle JJLakewood Middle jjR1dgeroad Middle I 1 Rose City Middle I Argenta Academy I I NLRHS-EasCt ampus I INLRHS-West~ ampus I DISTRICT2 003 TOTALS I District 2002 Totals II District 2001 To~ ~ I 0 v (' 7 North Little Rock Public Schools (Return to top of page) I October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 District Totals White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M Fl Ml Fl Ml F M F M F K 6] 128 110 I 1991 188 8 15 0 1 1 0 01 68 130 128 193 210 14 10 1 1 0 0 02 66 112 I 1041 212 I 2oall 1111 811 41 21 011 1 03 64l 115 104 197 198 19 131 1 II 011 1 II 0 04 691 125 117 219 201 13 11 2 3 0 0 05 673 124 129 205 195 12 1 6 1 0 1 0 06 679 119 116 198 219 11 131 1 II 011 21 0 07 697 127 134 222 190 12 al 211 21 0 0 08 46 152 243 183 8 6 2 1 0 0 \" http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/enrollment_ 2000.htm 11/20/02 09 755 164 I 16811 2121 181 I 1611 13 0 0 0 1 10 . 772 1751 15111 2391 181 Bl 101 3 2 1 1 11 i::nn 132 176 ~ 147 I 61 2 1 0 0 12 609 159 149 I 16911 311 31 1 3 0 2 Totals 8859 1761 1738 I 258311 2470~ 13811 12211 201 16 6 5 -- f39.5o% l 157.04% I 2.93% I I o.41% I 0.12% -  I I I I I I I I lI I I I I I I I I  OCTOBER 1, 2001 DISTRICT TOTALS. (Return to top of page) CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DISTRICT TOTALS GRADE SPAN: K-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC EffiEESIAN/PI IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL ~~I M I F M F I K 706 138 126 203 211 13 12 2 0 0 01 655 114 105 195 220 8 9 4 0 0 0 02 661 ~ 101 204 204 11 10 1 2 1 0 03 711 132 127 211 218 10 10 1 2 0 0 04 693 ~ 131 228 194 12 7 0 1 l 0 05 682 123 117 199 221 10 9 l 0 2 0 ' 06 664 110 104 226 205 10 6 0 2 1 0 I 07 765 165 153 236 188 10 9 3 1 0 0 08 682 ~ 151 199 170 13 5 0 0 0 I 0 I 09 660 155 128 210 152 9 4 1 0 0 I 1 I 10 877 194 194 242 218 6 13 3 5 0 2 11 668 158 156 154 187 9 3 0 l 0 I 0 I 12 625 156,~ 123 165 5 Bo 1 6 coEB TOTALS 9059 1845 7 2630 2553 126 107 ~DJ 4 Percentage 39.68% 57.21% 2.57% 0.42% 0.11% -C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/enrol1ment_2000.htm 11/20/02 OCTOBER 2, 2000 DISTRICT TOTALS (Return to top of page) CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DISTRICT TOTALS GRADE SPAN: K-12 I WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT 11 GRADE TOTAL IGJ F M F M F ~ M F 11 J II 164 [~ 8 71 76 3 2 G:J~ 0 0 I K II 669 I 117 100 I 213 221 9 3 ~ EB 647 124 105 I 194 209 7 6 EB 0 2 711 138 117 216 218 11 6 2 03 659 124 127 I 205 188 5 0 ~ 0 04 675 107 126 I 201 220 8 ~ 0 2 05 627 101 0 CJ:J 06 658 0 07 656 08 610 09 756 I 0 10 I 854 0 11 621 2 12 529 0 EX 0 0 SCHOOLS 8836 2574 2559 TOTALS 58.1% W/0 8003 16 09 2290 2262 91 8 6 7 GRD J/K 40.6% 56.9% 2.1% .3% .2% '--14~_B_s_ck_~l lJ Home I Fl Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.u~ http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/enrollment_2000.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~'\n.l?.1' : ,?(t OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA 16002-054 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 4 2 30 27 1 1 0 0 0 0 01 77 3 2 33 37 1 1 0 0 0 0 02 77 3 0 25 48 0 0 0 0 0 1 03 59 3 ,~ 25 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 04 53 1 1 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 75 4 3 35 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 406 18 9 ,\n,l. 174 197 4 3 0 0 0 1 7.39% 91.38% 1.72% 0.00% 0.25% ~1: 371 v ~1:-:J~_Bfa$j_ ck_~I \"\"' Home 7 I t I Up I b-:1 Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsq.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/boone _park_ elementary.htm 11/20/02 t' :\n$:\nL 7 C,, _\n)/ I ~ / 0 t::\u0026gt; 0 ~ -I ~ 7' -I 0 0 0 0 -I\n)'y I 0 '9 ~ 1-1 '/ 0 0 I C: ~I ~ 3 13 /7 6 tr) 0 C? e.\u0026gt; {,~ ~ (, ~ 4, 0 I 0 ~f\n? 9 // C, 0 ~7 (,, ~4, ~/ I 0 0 I 0 \u0026lt;g' a- I (b 0 1'1 19 I I 1.3 ? cO --II C. // /0 /\ni5 0 I r, 0 ) 1 /0 I .:\no /~ p\n:\n. I\nP '\" 0 -- -- ~ II lcf'/ 197 Ii I\nI~ I 0 I fc', -f~o- -r-,I /,o t ~? /I~ /0 /91 //ff' /\") /a I 0 /  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-050 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:AMBOY ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 58 9 4 19 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 56 9 9 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 55 6 6 27 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 52 7 6 21 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 04 64 14 9 17 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 52 10 9 22 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 !Totals II 33711 5511 4311 12211 1131 3 1 0 ole]JC] I29.oa I 169.73% I 1.19% 0.00% 10.00%1 I fj Home lit! Up I Fl Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/amboy _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only \"\"\"'\"'\" OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-053 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BELWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 30 3 4 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 26 6 2 6 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 22 6 3 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 22 4 5 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 38 8 4 13 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 05 20 5 4 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 159 32 22 54 48 0 3 0 0 0 0 33.96% 64.15% 1.89% 0.00% 0.00% .'o/\nCl~ ..3. j~ Back I l$j Home 1t1 I Up I t+I Next To place information here, contact webmoster@moil.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/belwood _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only .,  ',. .'.o/i OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-055 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:CRESTWOOD ELEl-:IENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 57 17 18 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 73 25 27 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 58 21 18 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 49 15 14 11 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 04 49 13 22 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 51 16 13 10 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 Totals 337 107 112 68 48 0 0 1 0 1 0 64.99% 34.42% 0.00% 0.30% 0.30% Back j fj /I? ,\n- Home j .-lt,_j--up--j~ F_~NIe _~-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/crestwood _ elementary .htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only 1,:' -L~\n1 11 OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-056 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS I COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK I SCHOOL:GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 24 6 1 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 29 5 5 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 35 2 3 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 31 3 3 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 29 1 5 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 38 4 2 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 186 21 19 82 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.51% 78.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -210 1-r~ -r-? ~j.-j~-Ba-ck-f~$I J Home 1t1-1 --up--Fl ~-NIe -xi-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd_,kl2.ar.us http:/ /www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/glenview _ elementary.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals ~:. ..~. ~.:.t-\" OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-057 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Totals M F M F M F M 79 27 29 10 11 0 1 0 71 26 25 8 9 0 1 1 75 24 30 7 11 0 0 2 66 25 26 8 6 0 1 0 75 29 25 10 7 0 1 1 66 21 28 6 10 0 1 0 432 152 163 49 54 0 5 4 72.92% 23.84% 1.16% 208% \u0026lt;:PIO / / ~'4~_Ba_ck_~j L.-LfJ~_Ho_me_j1_,' --t'_I _,_1_ U_p _ _,I ..._f--:...N,_eI _xi _ _, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/indian _hills_ elementary.htm Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0.00% 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA ij6002-058 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 61 24 26 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 56 15 20 11 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 02 56 22 14 9 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 03 49 17 9 11 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 04 42 13 12 13 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 05 53 16 15 7 11 1 3 0 0 0 0 Totals 317 107 96 54 45 7 6 1 1 0 0 64.04% 31.23% 4.10% 0.63% 0.00% Back fj Home 1 JI,t--,---1.- ,U. p---,/f.--F-r-1 -N-ext----, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.M_S http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/lakewood _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only -, r - OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-060 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 43 3 2 21 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 59 6 5 17 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 3 4 27 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 03 67 3 6 26 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 63 9 4 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 52 6 9 13 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 337 30 30 129 144 4 0 0 0 0 0 17.80% 81.01% 1.19% 0.00% 0.00% ?0 c:\u0026lt;7B -I ~1:--1~-Ba-ck-~@j j Home I J t I Up I ~~~I -Ne_xt_~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/lynch _drive_ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only ..,.s .l OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA lt6002-061 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 I Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 30 5 5 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 36 3 5 11 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 26 3 3 8 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 03 21 0 0 8 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 26 3 3 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 25 4 4 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 164 18 20 56 67 1 0 1 1 0 0 I 23.17% 75.00% 0.61% 1.22% 0.00% /~3 oB Back If $l Home I ~t~' _lU _p -~' F~-NIe _xt_~ To place information here, contact we~master@mail.nlrsd.k12.gr.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/meadow _park_ elementary.htrn 11/20/02 North Little Rock Sch-oo-l District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA ll6002-063 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN:K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 8 7 16 18 3 13 0 0 0 0 01 67 8 7 17 19 10 6 0 0 0 0 02 73 6 12 22 18 8 7 0 0 0 0 03 82 19 12 13 18 13 7 0 0 0 0 04 87 11 12 22 25 11 6 0 0 0 0 05 80 13 13 21 23 7 2 0 0 1 0 Totals 454 65 63 111 121 52 41 0 0 1 0 28.19% 51.10% 20.48% 0.00% 0.22% ~a.,., ?.J , Back I lJ Home II. ---tc-rl--up-'-'----,1.- --F~I_N_e~-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mall.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/north _heights_ elementary .htrn 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only ) ) Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals :\n})'c~ OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-064 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Totals M F M F M F M 38 10 8 8 11 0 0 0 41 13 8 10 10 0 0 0 39 10 4 14 11 0 0 0 41 6 11 10 13 0 1 0 45 12 7 16 8 2 0 0 58 12 12 18 15 0 1 0 262 63 50 76 68 2 2 0 43.13% 54.96% 1.53% 0.00% 11 a /-3/-1/ s 1.-J Back J f\u0026lt;tj Home J I t J Up J t4: J Next To place Information here, contact webmaster@mai1.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/park _hill_ elementary.htm Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 0 /% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I A' 0 0.00% 11/20/02 c\n.~ ..i:,i 7 iJ 5Y CJ -/ /fj I n r. .., 0 .::3 /.\n,.. // \u0026lt;!J c0 e:\u0026gt; 0 f\u0026gt;') ? /7 /~ /~ ? 0 0 n tX \u0026amp; / y 7 t? c\u0026gt; 0 c-\u0026gt; {\"\") 79 ~7 ~? /0 // 0 / 0 / 0 I _\n)? 7 / 0 0 0 C) 3 ?- /7 0 0 ('\") .,pe\u0026gt; ? ~ /\nl s? 0 0 t:.:\u0026gt; i tt.~ ~ 7 I (,e, If I. 0 f?:JJ. ~ /0 'B' /I 0 0 ~7 /,/ ~ ,\n)-# / ~ 0 0 \u0026lt;:O ) .J/~ I t:\n-\n5 /.\n! //.:\u0026gt; 19\u0026lt;j I '8 0 I :) /4,-,1, ,.JI~ r\n.\n,o /~~ J/D 11? r~)f' '8' 0 I 0 ~f'- eO /~ I North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~,. t OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-065 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 57 12 4 24 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 01 51 11 12 17 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 43 6 6 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 57 10 10 20 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 04 65 9 11 21 21 0 2 1 0 0 0 05 47 7 13 11 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 320 55 56 107 94 3 3 2 0 0 0 34.69% 62.81% 1.88% 0.63% 0.00% ~lii~-BIa -cfkj- ~I ,dol~--~3 Home 1t1 I Up IF ~-NIe -xt-~ To place information here, contact web__master@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/pike _view_ elementary .htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only .,,.~ - -. ,\"1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-069 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 43 0 0 21 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 45 0 1 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 50 0 1 26 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 52 3 1 22 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 55 2 2 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 57 6 4 27 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 302 11 9 145 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.62% 93.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% .\n?So\u0026gt;- o Back If j Home IIt~~ -UI- p -~, r:~-N--e-,x t-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/ seventh_ street_ fine_ arts.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~, '\"\"~-~- OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-070 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTYl:? ULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE Sl?AN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 278 80 88 59 47 1 1 1 1 0 0 08 307 91 102 65 43 2 2 1 1 0 0 Totals 585 171 190 124 90 3 3 2 2 0 0 61.71% 36.58% 1.03% 0.68% 0.00% lil Back I lJ\n?(/~ ___ ........,/()~--~ Home 11t j Up I F... .I. _.N.._.e.x.t. . ___, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/lakewood_midd1e.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only i']jc'~ OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-059 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 06 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 675 118 116 197 217 11 13 1 0 2 0 Totals 675 118 116 197 217 11 13 1 0 2 0 34.67% 61.33% 3.56% 0.15% 0.30% ~~_i/ ../1~ ~7 j, :4'.j.......__B _ac___k, fI $J Home 11 t I Up I b:I Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/poplar _ street_ middle.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only Ji:i!. . ,~:\n_. _ .\n_, OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-072 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 299 40 39 109 93 11 7 0 0 0 0 08 315 50 39 118 97 6 4 1 0 0 0 Totals 614 90 78 227 190 17 11 1 0 0 0 27.36% 67.92% 4.56% 0.16% 0.00% 1-il To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/ridgeroad _ rniddle.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA J6002-077 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK i SCHOOL:ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL GRA[E SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 123 8 7 55 51 0 0 1 1 0 0 08 127 11 12 61 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 250 19 19 116 94 0 0 1 1 0 0 15.20% 84.00% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% ~? c:!)/0 ~ 1.--4-r---B-ac~-k-. I ~@l~-H-om-e~~I ,-tI, ..,..1--up---.-.-lF -rl-N-ext-----, To place information here, contact webmaster@m_ail.nJ~d.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/rose _city_ middle.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2001 LEA #6002-07 6 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:ARGENTA ACADEMY GRADE SPAN: 06-12 HISPANIC IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F 05 0 0 06 5 0 3 0 0 0 07 21 2 15 2 0 0 0 08 20 4 0 10 6 0 0 0 09 41 3 23 5 CI] 0 0 10 54 20 0 0 11 43 7 16 10 0 12 28 5 5 10 8 0 0 0 TOTALS 213 37 19 100 52 3 ,, 0 Percentage 26.29% 71.36% 1.88% 0.00% 0.00% 9~ /9?- ~ 1--3 Back I k0 Home I llL Up =7 Fl Next To place Information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/argenta _ academy .htin 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only 1:1:-s -.l'f:IOIIIP. . ,i,l I OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-075 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NLRHS-EAST CAMPUS GRADF. SPAN: 09-10 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 722 157 164 197 176 15 12 0 0 0 1 10 626 148 138 177 143 7 6 3 2 1 1 Totals 1348 305 302 374 319 22 18 3 2 1 2 45.03% 51.41% 2.97% 0.37% 0.22% Back j @j To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/nlrhs-east_ campus.htrn 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only r:J:.?::~~: :ruw~,-., _\n-'::i-\\'.,~ r=- OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-076 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS I COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK I SCHOOL:NLRHS-WEST CAMPUS GRADE SPAN: 11-12 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv .Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 30 6 3 14 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 146 27 13 62 38 2 4 0 0 0 0 11 590 132 176 124 147 2 6 2 1 0 0 12 608 159 149 119 169 3 3 1 3 0 2 Totals 1374 324 341 319 359 8 14 3 4 0 2 48.40% 49.34% 1.60% 0.51% 0.15% ~6 r.,7g' ~'4~_B_ac_k_~I fj Home 11 t I Up To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/nlrhs-west_ carnpus.htm 11/20/02 !Grade 103 104 jo5 06 07 08 09 10 12 I Totals North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 District Totals i!Totals I II 6501 II 6871 II 6621 II 6481 II 6911 Black M F 195 219 190 18311 181 Hispanic 19 13 12 11 12 al 16 18 9 247011 1381 12.93% 1 13 11 6 13 8 6 13 10 6  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  0 0 0 0 0 3 0 16 6 0.12% 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 North Little Rock Public Schools j October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 - )'--------\n=========D=is=tr=ic=t=T\n=o=ta=ls=============== /,-----,,~-- 11 Grade I Totals K Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 18811 81 0 21011 14) 0 20811 111 1 19811 191 0 04 219 20111 131 0 05 205 19511 121 0 06 198 21911 11 1 0 07 222 19011 121 0 08 8 0 09 16 10 9 11 2 0 169 3 1 3 0 2 !Totals 2470 13 1221 2011 161 6 5 39.50% 12.93% 1 I o.41% I 10.12% 1  I I I I I I I I lI I I I I I I I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plan Provisions Schools will have a racial composition within 25% of the racial composition of the district as a whole. (NLRSD Plan, pg. 8) Findings While the NLRSD desegregation plan makes no reference to organizational level, district officials calculate racial balance for elementary and secondary schools separately each year based on the overall racial composition of each level. For the 1993-94 school year, the district is 52% black at the elementary level and 46% black at the secondary level. Calculations based on these figures yield a target range for elementary schools of 39% to 65% black, and 34% to 58% black for the secondary schools. All but two NLRSD schools fall within the acceptable ranges for racial balance\ntwo special schools both exceed the target range. Enrollment at the secondary alternative school is 70% black, and secondary enrollment at Baring Cross, a school for students who are developmentally disabled, is 71 % black, proportions which far exceed the target limits for black enrollment. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Plan Provisions PCSSD schools are to strive for a minimum black enrollment of 20%. Bayou Meta Elementary school is exempt due to its remote location. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 72) The goal of the plan is to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools. By the end of the implementation period, all PCSSD schools should be within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing districtwide average of blacks by organizational level. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 84, incorporating the Joshua Agreement, page 9) Findings To determine the upper end of the target racial balance range for PCSSD schools, we used a mathematical formula based on the parties' Joshua Agreement. PCSSD 1993-94 enrollment is 30% black at both the elementary and secondary level, meaning that the maximum black percentage at any PCSSD school this year should be 38%. Because the plan specifies 20% as the minimum black enrollment target, the racial balance range in PCSSD schools this year is between 20% to 38% black. Bates, College Station, Fuller, Harris, and Landmark elementaries exceed the maximum black enrollment. Fuller Junior High and Mills High School, with a 43% and a 48% black enrollment respectively, fail to achieve the 38% maximum limit. Lawson Elementary is the only school (other than the exempt Bayou Meta) with a black enrollment below the 20% Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I Findings While the NLRSD desegregation plan makes no reference to organizational level, district officials calculate racial balance for elementary and secondary schools separately each year based on the overall racial composition of each level. In the last year, the percentage of NLRSD enrollment comprised by blacks grew at both the elementary and secondary levels. For the 1994-95 school year, the district is 54% black at the elementary level and 49% black at the secondary level. Calculations based on these figures yield a target range this year for elementary schools of 40% to 68% black, and 37% to 61 % black for the secondary schools. The target ranges last year were 39% to 65% black at the elementary level and 34% to 58% black for secondary schools. The NLRSD desegregation plan excludes kindergarten children from mandatory bussing to achieve desegregation. The district maintains that the exclusion of these students from the desegregation assignment plan also excludes them from consideration in the racial balance calculations for each elementary school. However, in this report we counted kindergarten and four-year-old children just as we counted all students in the other elementary grades, and we calculated the school's racial balance with those students included. We followed this procedure because enrollment figures maintained by both LRSD and PCSSD include their four-year-old and kindergarten students. By including these grade levels in NLRSD's figures, we are able to produce a more complete and consistent picture of enrollment among all three Pulaski County school districts. All but three NLRSD schools fall within this year's acceptable ranges for racial balance: both the elementary and secondary alternative schools, along with Redwood Elementary School, exceed the target range. While the total enrollment at Redwood is 71 % black, which is three percentage points above the maximum, the school's racial balance would fall within the guidelines if kindergarten and four-year-old students were excluded. Enrollment at the elementary alternative school is 82% black, and 80% of the students at the secondary alternative school are black, proportions far outside the target limits for black enrollment. PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT Plan Provisions PCS SD schools are to strive for a minimum black enrollment of 20%. Bayou Meto Elementary school is exempt due to its remote location. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 72) The goal of the plan is to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCS SD schools. By the end of the implementation period, all PCS SD schools should be within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing districtwide average of blacks by organizational level. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 84, incorporating the Joshua Agreement, page 9) Findings To determine the upper end of the target racial balance range for PCS SD schools, we used a mathematical formula based on the parties' Joshua Agreement. This year, black students comprise a larger proportion of the PCSSD enrollment. at both the elementary and secondary levels, than in Page 7 Jan 31 03 04:26p NLRSD Student AFFa1rs 5017718001 Office of Student Affairs North L'tde Rock School District 2 700 Poplar S /reet North l.Jttle Rock. AR 72115-0687 (501) 771-8010 Francicalj. Jackson, Director DATE: I -3J-o3 TO: ___ c/7_!l_~_r~..__,~___'t \u0026gt;7__ _l,,_t__,_ 'uLV.. _ RE: _____________________ _ FAX J 7J-()j()Q ******************* FROM: __ 1-t_,.a1, _-,+_-I~-_ /G:J_t_fa_-_.Y_' _ _ 0 FAX: \"]1 /.-fOu I PHONE: ---------- COMENTS: _______________ _ This fax is o( page {s) including the cover page. If you do not receive all the pages, please call our of.ice at (501) 771-8010. p. 1 ,., (\\J Q.. .... 0 0 .C.X.\u0026gt;. r-r.-.-.. 0 II) Ill .L. . Ill \u0026lt;+- \u0026lt;+- a: ..., C Cl) \"'O .:., ., (/) Q (/) ~ ..J z: Q.. r-- (\\.J . T 0 (T) 0 .... (TJ C fV '7 SCHOOL: GRADE LEVEL PRE-K KINDERGARTEN FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH TOTAL ~ GRACES 1 -5 \u0026lt; \"- ........ ..,.. .... ..., 0 C) .. ' ,_ 0\ng WHITE M F # ) 6 % 1% 3% # % # % # % # % # % # % # J 6 % t% 3% ELEMENTARY SCHOOELN ROLLMENT TOTAL BLACK TOTAL WHITE M F BLACK 9 tCS 913 203 4% 48% 44% 92% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 lCS\ne 203 4% 48% 44\".4 92% 2002-2003 OTHER TOTAL M F OTHER TOTAL 7 2 9 221 3% 1% 4% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '7 2 9 221 3% 1% 4% Pages PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT FOR 1 OCTOBER 2002 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 01 Adkins Elementary 6003090 PK* 6 4 5 3 3 ~ 0\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_1432","title":"Program correspondence and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-10/2004-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["Program correspondence and reports"],"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/1432"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1463","title":"Program correspondence and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-10/2004-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational planning","School administrators","School superintendents","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Program correspondence and reports"],"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/1463"],"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":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["75 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1747","title":"District Court, memorandum opinion.","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":["2002-09-13"],"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--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","African Americans--Education","School integration","School discipline","Student activities","Education--Evaluation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, memorandum opinion."],"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/1747"],"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 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\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   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    R;~l~f!~O EAsr~~lkf~s,s OFFICE OF ' ' . Sf p l ,a :zooz  DESEGREGATION MONITORING . J~MES . By, IN THE UNITED. STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION ---- - ------------ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS . __ ., INTERVENORS I. II. ill. N . A072A INDEX Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation .In Pulaski County .............. 11 A. 1956 Through 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B. 1973 Through 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C. Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D. The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 20 E. LRSD's Implementation Oflts Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And F. G. H. I. J. K. 1995 .... ..... ......................... .... ........ . ..... . . .. 24 Joshua's Request For An Interim Award Of Attorney's Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 LRSD's First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The Pexplexing Final Resolution Of Joshua's Request For Still More Attorneys' Fees From LRSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan . . . . . . . . . . 45 LRSD's Implementation Oflts Obligations Under The Revised Plan . . . . . 46 LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan ......................... . .... ... ... 52 A. LRSD's Obligation Of Good Faith ................. ... . ... .. . ..... 55 B. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Student Disciplip.e ............ : .. ... .. 55 C. LRSD's Obligations To hnprove And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 D. E. F. G. 11. I. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors ................... ; . . . 56 LRSD's Obligations To Develop Remedies, Where Appropriate, For Racial Disparities In Programs And Activities ............ , , .... , . , . . . . . . . . . 57 Procedure For Raising Compliance Jssues ............... : . .. . . . . . . . . . 57 Duration Of Revised Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 rrocc:;uure ror ;::;eeKlllg Urutary ;::;rams ............................. . Effect OfLRSD's Failure To Meet \"Specific Goals\" In The Revised Plan 59 60 Controlling Principles Of Law .......................................... 60 A. The Evolving Concept of Unitary Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 B. Applicable Standard For Determining IfLRSD Is Unitary ........ ... . .. 69 C. Burden Of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 D. Meaning Of\"Substantial Compliance\" ............................. 75 E. The Metaphysics Of Using The \"Achievement Gap\" As A Factor In Deciding Unitary Status ..... .. ... .. ..... .........................  ....... 77 -1- A072A V. Findings Of Fact .............. . ..... . .. _ ............. , .... . ........ . .. 85 A.  Good Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 B. Student Discipline . . .. . .................. . ... . ................. 95 C. Extracurricular Activities . . . . .... . . . ............ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 D. Advanced Placement Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Promote Participation and Remove Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Identify and Encourage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Assist . . .................. . ... . ............ . .. .. . ; . . . . . . . . . . 135 E. Guidance And Counseling ........... . ......... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 F, Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 G. Program Assessment/Program Evaluation ................. . ........ 150 VI. Conclusions Of Law ... . .. . ........ . .. . .......... . .. . .... ... . .. ; ..... . 160 A. Unitary Status .. . ....... . . . .  .... . .......... . ..............  .... 160  B. Burden Of Proof . . . . .... . .... . ............... . ...... . ...... . .. 160 C. Substantial Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 D. Good Faith . .. .. . .. ...... . . .. . . ......... . .........  ... .. . . .. . . 161 E. Student Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 F. Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 G. Partial Unitary Status . .... .. . .. .... . ... . .... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 H. Tune To Fly .... . . . . . ......... . .... . ...... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 VII. Compliance Remedy ......... .. .. .. ........ . ..................... . '. . 170 VIll. Conclusion . .. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 -ii- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 I. Introduction2 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On December 12, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement,\" as revised September 28, 1989; separate Settlement Plans for the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (''NLRSD\"), and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD''), dated 11t was my good fortune to have The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray, U.S. Magistrate Judge, assigned to this case with me. I would be sorely remiss ifl did not acknowledge, here and now, the prodigious effort and talent he has brought to this project. As authors. are wont to say, \"any errors, however, are mine alone.\" 2As a Bryan Garner disciple (beginners' class), I generally favor putting all substantive legal analysis in the text and citing the supporting cases in footnotes. However, so many issues in this case beg for digressions that I have been unable to resist the temptation to include substantive legal analysis in some of the footnotes. A07?A .  .  . . --~ - ---- -- -- ..  ... - ........ . ... ... ~ ........ - - .. , . - - ------- ---  -  . -----------~-  ... - -  - ---- ~ - - - - . .... . . . . . ---  -  .. January 31, 1989; and a separate Interdistrict Settlement Plan.3 LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). At that time, both the district court and the Eighth Circuit believed that this historic settlement created the \"benchmark for the future path of this case,\" Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d 253,255 (8th Cir.1991), and \"a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court.\" LRSDv. PCSSD, 769F. Supp. 1491, 1494 (E.D; Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). In the years following the Eighth Circuit's approval of the parties' final settlement of this case, all three Pulaski County school districts implemented their respective Settlement Plans under the supervision of the district court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"). 4 Subsequently, the district court and Eighth Circuit established guidelines for allowing the parties 3 Each of the Settlement Plans for the individual school districts contained their respective desegregation obligations. In addition, the Interdistrict Settlement Plan contained the interdistrict desegregation obligations for all three school districts. These Settlement Plans had been agreed to by the parties and approved by the Court, making them \"consent decrees.\" In their pleadings, the parties sometimes refer to these Settlement Plans as \"desegregation plans.\"  The three individual Settlement Plans for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD, and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan were submitted to the district court for approval during early 1989. However, becausethey were not approved by the Eighth Circuit until December 12, 1990, LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F .2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990),. the parties and the district court generally have referred to these settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settl.ement Plans, and the 1990 Intei-district Settlement Plan. In contrast, the Eighth Circuit has usually referred to these settlement documents as the 1989 settlement agreement and 1989 settlement plan or plans. Appeal of LRSD, 949 F .2d 253, 254 (8th Cir. 1991) (\"We recognized, however, that the approved plans, which we shall call the 1989 plan or plans, would need some modification because of the passage of time\"). Regardless of the terminology used, the parties, the qistrict court, and the Eighth Circuit are all referring to the same settlement documents. In the interest of consistency, I will refer to those documents in this opinion as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settlement Plan or Plans, and the 1990 Interdistrict Settlement Plan. \"The Eighth Circuit directed the district court to create and staff the ODM with the personnel it \"shall deem appropriate\" to help ensure compliance with all aspects of the 1990 Settlement Agreeinent and the four separate Settlement Plans. LRSD, 921 F .2d at 1388. -2- A072A to make agreed changes to the details of the Settlement Plans, as fong as they did not affect the \"major substantive commitments to desegregation\" embodied in those Plans. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d at256; see also LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491; LRSD v.. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). Between 1991 and 1996, LRSD worked toward implementing its desegregation obligations under the settlement documents. On May 1, 1992, the district court entered an Order ( docket no. 1587) approving certain changes to LRSD' s 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. A copy ofLRSD's modified settlement plan and interdistrict plan, referred to as \"LRSD' s May 1992 Desegregation Plan\" and the \"May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan,\" were attached to the court's May 1, 1992 Order. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that some of the desegregation obligations imposed on LRSD by the settlement documents might never be successfully implemented, regardless ofLRSD's best efforts .. Accordingly, on September 25, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion ( docket no. 2821) in which she \"invite[ d] the parties to modify the parts of the [ settlement] plan that are ineffective or unworkable.\" As a result, in late 1996 and 1997, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\")5 entered into vu.1,11uu11,1.:1,17u\"T,111111u1..- ~,  _c:1 61 uu.l'u11\\ 1 .. ~ -f\\lller,.......u.puouc school children enrolled in the three Pulaski County school districts, filed a \"Petition io Intervene\" ( docket no. 452). The Petitioners sought intervenor status ''for themselves and the other Black public school children of Pulaski County through their parents and next of friends .... \" Mrs. Lorene Joshua was the lead named parent and next of friend for her three minor school children. On May 24, 1984, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order (docket no. 565) that, in effect, granted the Petition to Intervene. Thereafter, the district court and the parties began referring to these intervenors simply as \"Joshua\" Because the intervenors represent the group of all AfricanAmerican school children in the Pulaski County public schools, I will sometimes use the plural pronoun ''they'' to refer to Joshua On occasion, the Eighth Circuit has elected to consider -3- . . , . .. -\"'-  -  -    ---..,-- ......   ..   - --- - ---  .. . protracted negotiations to modify various aspects ofLRSD 's Settlement Plan. These negotiations bore fruit in the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"); which LRSD and Joshua jointly submitted to the district court for approval on January 21, 1998 ( docket nos. 31 o7 and 3136), 6 On April 10, 1998, the district court entered an Order ( docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan,7 which it viewed as \"an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between LRSD and Joshua.\"8 Unlike LRSD's 1990 Settlement Plan, as modified by the May 1992 Desegregation Plan, the Revised Plan included a section establishing a specific procedure \"Joshua\" to be only the first named intervenor, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, and properly used the singular pronoun \"she\" to refer to \"Joshua\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). Either pronoun usage is correct, as long as the reader understands how the Court is  defining \"Joshua;\" 6 According to the explicit language of the Revised Plan, it \"shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders\" in this case \"and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation\" of the 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, a eals int retin and enforcin sections a through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 7buring the hearings on unitary status, the Revised Plan was introduced into evidence as ex 871. 8In its April 10 Order, the district court concluded, in the alternative, that, even if the Revised Plan was considered to be a \"modification\" ofLRSD's May 1992 Desegregation Plan, rather than \"an entirely new consent decree,\" it still should be approved under the test for seeking modification of a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). See also LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d at 914; LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1387. -4- A072A and time schedule under which LR.SD might achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary Status. At the conclusion of the 2000'-01 school year, the district court shall eriter ail 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 Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof If no party challenges LRSD 's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without farther proceedings. (Emphasis added.) Because none of the parties appealed the district court's April 10 Order approving the Revised Plan, it became a final consent decree, which now governs LRSD's desegregation obligations and establishes the path tha~ LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status and release from federal court supervision.9 On March 15, 2001, LR.SD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report 91n most school desegregation cases, a federal court's jurisdiction depends on the existence of constitutional violations by the school district Once the school district complies with all of its obligations under the Constitution, it achieves \"unitary status,\" and the federal court's jurisdiction ends. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1971). .   1 .   In Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 4~5-38 (1968), the Court identified the following areas of a school district's operations that must be carefully exannncu m oetemnnmg wnemer 1t.nas successtu.lly converteo .. to a unnary system m whlch racial discrimination [has been] eliminated root and branch\": ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities . . These so-called Green factors establish the floor for a school district's compliance with its constitutional obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in all school desegregation cases, a school district's compliance with the Green factors is a condition precedent to unitary status. Importantly, the Revised Plan required LRSD to comply with not only the Green factors, but also a host of other desegregation obligations that went well beyond the constitutional floor established by the Court in Green. Thus, in this case, the question of unitary status turns on whether LRSD has substantially complied with its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. -5- A072A ( docket no. 3410), 10 pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan, seeking \"an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations.\" On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), which vigorously challenged LRSD's contention that it was entitled to a declaration of unitary status and argued that LRSD was not in \"substantial complian?e\" with certain of its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. On July 5 and 6, August 1 and 2, and November 19 and 20, 2001, my colleague and predecessor in this case,United States CbiefDistrict Judge Susan Webber Wright, conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their three strongest grounds11 for challenging LRSD's request for unitary status: first, that LRSD had not acted in good faith in implementing its desegregation obligations( 2.1 of the Revised Plan); second, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding student discipline (  2.5 through 2.5 .4 of the Revised Plan); and third, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students ( 2.7, 2.7.1, and 5.1-5.8 of the Revised Plan). In a scheduling conference on December 11, 2001, Judge Wright desi~ated the week of , . January 28, 2002, to hear no more than five additional days of testimony regarding the last three 10During the hearings on unitary status, the Final March 15, 200 l Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as CX 870. 111n a telephone conference with counsel on June 29, 2001; Judge Wright made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence (docket no. 3461 at 54-55). -6- areas of the Revised Plan in which Joshua claimed LRSD had :failed to substantially comply with its obligations: advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2 of the Revised Plan); extracurricular activities( 2.6 and 2.6.3 of the Revised Plan); ~d guidance counseling (.2.6.1 of the Revised Plan) ( docket no. 3597 at 31-37).12 Judge Wright made it clear tha~ after she had heard the testimony concerning these last three areas of LRSD's alleged noncompliance, she  would decide the question of unitary status. Id. at 36-37. On January 3, 2002, after presiding over this case with great perseverance and distinction for eleven years, 13 Judge Wright determined that it was the \"appropriate tiine to reassign this case to another judge with minimal disruption to the parties and to allow a smooth transition\" ( docket no. 3569). That same day, the case was assigned to me by random selection ( docket no. 3570).14 On March 15, 2002, one year to the day after submitting its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report, LRSD filed a Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status 12Judge Wright also ruled that Joshua could present non-curi:mlative evidence regarding: (a) LRSD's lack of good faith in implementing its obligations regarding. advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling; and (b) the ways in which LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement courses and guidance counseling adversely impacted the academic achievement of African-American students . . 13JnLRSD v. NLRSD, 148 F .3d 956,967 (8th Cir.1998), the Court recognized the expertise Judge Wright had gained during her many years of service in this case: In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Court's interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a formal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. 14Of course, the five days of evidentiary hearings that Judge Wright had scheduled for the week of January 28, 2002, were cancelled. -7- (docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief_(docket no. 3581). On May 9, 2002, I entered a fourteen-page Order ( docket no. 3598) explaining to the parties my understanding of the current status of the case. Because the passing of the baton is a key factor in any relay race, the May 9 Order noted: Judge Wright, my immediate predecessor in this case, has done an outstandingjob of narrowing the issues and establishing a schedule that should allow nie to conduct no more than five additional days of evidentiary hearings on the four remaining issues and then be in a position to decide the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. For that reason, the Court intends to pick up where Judge Wright left off, without disturbing the schedule that was established and agreed to by the parties and the Court during the December 11, 2001 hearing. May 9, 2002 Order at 12 (docket no. 3598) (footnote omitted). In a telephone conference with counsel on May 14, 2002, I rescheduled for July 22-26, 2002, the last five days of evidentiary hearings on the question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan . . In an Order (docket no. 3600) entered the next day, I set forth the schedule adopted during the May 14 telephone conference. On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition-to LRSD's Motion for an hnmediate Declaration ofUnitary Status ( docket no. 3604). On June 7, 2002, LRSD filed a Reply i Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( do.cket no. 3607). relevant to the determination of whether LRSD is entitled to a declaration of unitary status. Thus, the record is now complete, and the issue of unitary status is ready for decision. During the last eight months, I have spent many an hour trying to educate myself on the significant rulings and agreements that have shaped the current contours of this twenty-year-old -8-  A072A case.15 I have also read a ground-slide load of cases to gain an understanding of the evolution of school desegregation litigation during the last five decades and to grasp the issues a court must resolve in deciding whether a . school district has achieved unitary status. I have learned that desegregation cases are invariably complex, involve difficult-to-understand jargon, and frequently generate book-length appellate decisions, with seemingly obligatory concurring and dissenting opinions. Of course, I have found none of these discoveries to be surprising. After all, the issue of desegregation goes to both the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of \"equal protection\" and the dark soul of what was, in many parts of the country in the I 950's, a de jure segregated public school system that only grudgingly gave ground to integration-after most school districts had exhausted all available means of delay. In 1954, the Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (I 954) (\"Brown I\"), holding that \"in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place\" and that segregation of public education is a denial of\"equal protection of the laws.\"16 Three years later, Little Rock suddenly found itself at the epicenter of this country's first major school desegregation effort. In early August  of 1957, LRSD school officials (including the school board) were prepared to implement a plan to admit a small number of African-American students to Central High School. Arkansas's Governor, Orval Faubus, ostensibly supported that plan, which, if 15This action was filed on November 30, 1982, as the last in a long line of desegregation cases, dating back to 1956. See infra, note 18. The pleadings in this case alone now occupy hundreds of feet of file space in the Clerk's office. 16The next year; the Court explicitly directed the lower federal courts to accomplish desegregation ''with all deliberate speed.\" Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955) (\"Brown II\"). -9- _ A072A ' . . .. .. ~ . implemented with the support of the State, may well have led to the peaceful integration of Central. As it turned out, however, just as school started, Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the \"Little'Rock Nine\" :froin entering Central. 17 Faubus, who was known as somewhat of a moderate up to that time, shamelessly fanned  the flames of racism under the rubric of \"state' s rights,\" \"interposition,\" and the like. Thus, Little Rock became the first great legal .battleground in the long struggle to desegregate this country's public school system, a distinction that has left lasting wounds in this community. One can only wonder how the history of school desegregation might have been different if the first southern governor to squarely face the dictates of Brown I had done his plain, sworn constitutional duty. In view of the historical importance of this case, I believe I should review the long and winding path trod by LRSD in carrying out its constitutional duty, under Brown I and its progeny, to rid the Little Rock school system, to the extent practicable, of the vestiges of de jure segregation. Withoutatleast some understanding of that history, it is impossible to appreciate the deep passions this case still. stirs iii the litigants, lawyers, and judges who have been involved in almost five decades of continuous, unremitting school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County.18 17Faubus, of course, cited public safety concerns as bis reason for mobilizing the National Guard. He claimed \"secret intelligence reports\" indicated that dangerous outside agitators were at work in Little Rock, but these reports were never substantiated. In fact, the evidence now available suggests that the white mob which confronted the \"Little Rock Nine\" was mobilized by Faubus' own demagoguery, rather than by unidentified \"outside agitators.\" And, of course, other demagogues of a like mind were quick to pitch in. R. Reed, Faubus: The Life And Times Of An American Prodigal (1997). 18Jn 1956, the plaintiffs inAaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark.1956), filed suit against LRSD to force it to desegregate pursuant to the Court's holding in Brown I. In 1964, the plaintiffs filed Clark v. Board of Educ. of LRSD as a continuation of the desegregation action -10-   .  . . _ ..... - .,: ' - - - - . -  .. 1- ..   ., ... ... ,_ .. . .. --. ... ; .  ~ . . ....  - .... -  . .. '   A. II. The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation In Pulaski County 1956 Through 1973 mLRSDv. PCSSD, 584F. Supp. 328, 331-32 (E.D. Ark. 1984), the late and distinguished United States District Judge Henry Woods, the first judge to preside over this case, chronicled  in great detail the history of desegregation in Pulaski County. m bis scholarly decision, Judge Woods descnbed: the operation of LRSD m 1930, when it was a dejure segregated school district operating under the \"separate but equal\" doctrine;19 the Court's decision in Brown I, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson; the court-ordered implementation of a plan to admit a small number of African-American students to Little Rock Central High School in September of1957;20 Governor Faubus' use of Arkansas National Guard troops at Central to place it \"off limits\" to African-American students and the subsequent removal of those troops after the issuance of an injunction by United States District Judge Ronald Davies in Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220 commenced against LRSD in Aaron v. Cooper. See Judge William Overton's July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order in Clark, a copy of which, marked Exhibit 1, is attached to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support ofMotion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581 ). On Noveinber 30, 1982, LRSD initiated this action against the PCS SD, NLRSD, and thP ,\\ -1 Roard nfPnnr\u0026lt;itinn ., .... v;no the consolidation of all three school districts in Pulaski County as the appropriate interdistrict desegregation remedy.  Thus, LRSD has been involved continually in federal desegregation litigation for forty-six years. 19Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown I, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 20See Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956). As discussed supra at note 18, Aaron was filed in 1956 to force LRSD to desegregate pursuant to the Court's holding in Brown. United States District Judge John E. Miller entered a decree on August 27, 1956, approving LRSD's plan of gradual school integration beginning with senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. The Eighth Circuit subsequently affirmed that decision. Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F .2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). -11- AQ_7~_ (E.D. Ark. 1957);21 the nine courageous African-American students entering Central on September 23, 1957, in the face of a large, threatening mob of whites; and, finally, President Eisenhower dispatching troops to Central to ensure the safety of the African-American students and to enforce Judge Davies' desegregation order.22 Judge Woods also traced desegregation plans advanced by LRSD in \"the decade of 1960 in a good faith effort to provide a solution to continuous litigation\" and the failure of those plans m \"the hysterical political atmosphere of that period.\" LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 334. In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved LRSD.'s \"freedom of choice\" desegregation pl~, which remained in effect through the 1968-69 school year. Clarkv. Board of Education ofLRSD, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). Significantly, in its decision, the Court noted LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system._ 21In 1957, the Eighth Circuit assignedJudge Davies, of Fargo, North Dakota, to preside over Aaron. On September 21, 1957, Judge Davies issued an injunction ordering Governor au us, e ~utant ener o e tate o ansas, an 1eutenant_ o one anon . Johnson of the Arkansas National Guard, and their officers, agents, and employees to cease and desist \"obstructing or preventing, by means of the Arkansas National Guard, or otherwise, Negro students, eligible under said plan of school integration to attend the Little Ro~k Central High School, from attending said school .... \" Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. at 222. See also Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1958). 22Scenes of angry mobs of white protesters confronting the nine African-American students as they entered Central and, later, troops of the 101 st Airborne Division rolling across the Broadway Bridge to restore order in Little Rock are still deeply etched in the minds of many Arkansans. -12- l A072A Id. at 666.23 In Green v. County School Board ofNe',11 Kerit County, 391 U.S. 430, 439-40 (1968), the . . Court held that school districts such as LRSD, which were the product ofde jure segregation, could not satisfy their constitutional obligations under \"freedom of choice\" plans. Therefore, LRSD formulated a new desegregation plan for the 1969-70 school year that was based on geographic attendance zones. However', because segregated housing patterns created a number of racially identifiable schools under the plan, the Eighth Circuit found it to be unconstitutional. Clarkv. Board of Education ofLRSD, 426 F.2d 1035, 1043 (8th Cir. 1970). In the 1971-72 school year, LRSD began crosstown busing to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12. Clarkv. Board of Directors ofLRSD, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209, 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971, rev'd in part, 449 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1971). The following school year, crosstown busing was used to achieve racial balance in grades 4 and 5. Clark v. Board of Education of LRSD, 465 F.2d 1044, 1046 (8th Cir .. 1972). Finally, during the 1972-73 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. B. Events Leading To Initiation Of This Action On July 9, 1982, United States District Judge WiUiam R. Overton entered a Memorandum and Order in Clark which contained many of the findings that underpinned LRSD's subsequent 23Likewise, in Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9, the Supreme Court acknowledged that LRSD was prepared to implement the plan, approved by Judge Miller in Aaron, 156 F. Supp. 220, to gradually integrate senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. However, LRSD was prevented from following that plan by the flagrantly unlawful actions of Governor Faubus, which the Supreme Court noted \"had not been requested by the school authorities, and [were] entirely unheralded.\" Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9. -13- A072A decision to file this action.24 In many respects, Judge Overton's decision was a ringing endorsement of LRSD for successfully implementing its school desegregation plan over the last nine years. For example, Judge Overton explicitly found: (1) \"no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices\"; (2) ''the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation\"; and (3) \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolated complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that record.\" July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 16 (docket no. 3581) ( emphasis added). 25 Although Judge Overton found that LRSD was operating \"as a completely unitary desegregated school system,\" he made a number of findings that raised serious questions about the future prospects for LRSD remaining an integrated school district. For' example, Judge Overton found that: ( 1) in the years after the desegregation ofLRSD elementary schools in 1973- 7 4, \"there has been a steady trend ofincreasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment 24As indicated previously, a copy of Judge Overton's July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order is attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). 25Eleven years later, Judge Wright, in describing the operation of LRSD in the years before it filed this action, observed that many believed desegregation litigation in the LRSD \"[had] been brought to a successful conclusion and the Little Rock school system seemed to have entered a period of relative tranquility and complete self-management.\" See Judge Wright's Statement to LRSD Board of Directors and Counsel on March 19, 1993, attached as Exhibit 1 to Joshua's August l, 1996 Memorandum in Opposition to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction ( docket no. 2730). -14- A072A ~-- in the elementary schools ... and [to a lesser extent] in the upper grades\";26 (2) despite LRSD's efforts to modify student assignment plans to correct the growing disparity in the black-white student ratio in elementary schools,\"[ a ]11 of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years\"; and (3) by the fall of 1981, LRSD faced a host of problems surrounding the school attendance plan, including a \"significant disparity in the black-white ratio at the various elementary schools,\" complaints ofblack parents \"that their children were being bused across the city to attend all black classes,\" and the defeat of \"the last two millage increase proposals ... by the electorate ... [ creating] severe financial problems and an eroding financial base.\" July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 1-6, attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). In an effort to retain and supplement the shrinking pool of white students, Judge Overton approved the Partial K-6 Plan,27 which created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the twelve neighborhood schools were racially balanced, and four were virtually all black. Under the plan, 26In the fall of 1971, 42% of the students in LRSD were black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased, while the number of white students decreased. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students and 55% ofhigh school students were black. See LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 335. In the December 16, 1981 Report prepared by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University, the authors concluded that, if existing trends continued, 90% of the students entering the first grade in LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Stephen F. Austin Report at 19, attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSD's Memorandum Briefin Support ofMotion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status ( docket no. 3581). 27This was a shorthand reference for LRSD's desegregation plan for children attending kindergarten through the sixth grade. -15- A072A Booker Junior High School became an intermediate school; a magnet school was to be created west ofUniversity Avenue; and a committee was appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6-11.28 Finally, Judge Overton noted that LRSD had taken a number of steps to address the problems that confronted it. First, LRSD had commissioned a study and report by a ' \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" at Stephen F. Austin University on its desegregation efforts and the challenges it faced in the future.29 Second, LRSD had begun investigating \"the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and [had] hired a law firm to pursue that remedy.\" See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6. C. Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief On November 30, 1982, LRSD filed this action-a new case30--against PCSSD, NLRSD, the State of Arkansas, and the Arkansas Department ofEducation (\"ADE\") seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County School Districts as the most appropriate and effective desegregation remedy for all three school districts. In its Complaint ( docket no. 10), LRSD alleged that PCS SD 28Judge Overton's July 9 decision approved LRSD's Partial K-:6 plan as a \"stop gap\" student assignment plan for elementary grades. The Eighth Circuit later affirmed that decision in Clarkv. Board of Educ. of LRSD, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). 29 As indicated, supra at note 26, this report, entitled \"Building on a Generation of Accomplishment Maintaining and Strengthening Desegregation in Little Rock\" (hereinafter referred to as the \"Austin Report\"), is attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). 3Because this action involved claims for relief and remedies that were different from those involved in Clark, it was considered to be a new case and was randomly assigned to the Honorable Henry Woods. -16- A072A and NLRSD engaged in \"a series of intradistrict constitutional violations with interdistrict effects\" and that the State of Arkansas and Arkansas Department of Education (hereinafter referred to collectively as the \"State/ADE\"), through funding and other state action, \"operated, maintained and/or condoned a racially segregated structure of public education under color of state law.\" After conducting a trial on the merits of the claims asserted in LRSD's Complaint, Judge Woods entered a Memorandum Opinion setting forth detailed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw to support his detennination that each of the three Defendants had violated the Constitution by creating \"racial isolation between and among the districts\" that had caused six specific \"interdistrict effects.\" LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 349-51.31 Judge Woods noted that, at a later date, he would conduct a hearing to take evidence regarding the precise nature of the remedy that should be fashioned to cure the interdistrict effects of \"substantial interdistrict segregation.\" Id. at 352-53. During the subsequent remedial hearings, PCSSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts and relied on the development of specialty or magnet schools to attract students from one district to another. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220, 1222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1984). NLRSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts, transferred certain geographic areas from PCSSD to LRSD and from LRSD to PCSSD, and depended heavily on the use of majority to minority transfers (\"M to M transfers\") to achieve racial balance. Id. at 1223. Although not advancing a specific plan, Joshua used testimony from 31 Judge Woods made 105 specific findings of fact and drew 14 conclusions oflaw to support his determination of the issue of liability. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed all of those findings of fact and conclusions oflaw. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8th Cir. 1985). -17- i! A072A ,c--o,a,,, two expert witnesses to suggest three options: (1) altering boundary lines in accordance with the NLRSD plan; (2) altering boundary lines to transfer other geographic areas among all three districts; or (3) transferring certain geographic areas to LRSD and having all of the remaining area of PCSSD consolidated with NLRSD. Id. at 1223-24. LRSD advanced a plan that involved the county-wide consolidation of all three school districts. Id. at 1224-25. After considering all of the evidence, Judge Woods concluded that \"a countywide interdistrict remedy must be utilized to correct the countywide interdistrict violation found to exist and that this is the only manner of placing the victims of this discrimination in the position they would have occupied absent the discrimination.\" Id. at 1225. 32 Judge Woods also concluded that the State/ ADE: (a) failed to discharge its affirmative duty to encourage desegregation, which had an interdistrict effect on LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD; and (b) had \"remedial responsibilities with respect to this case.\" Judge Woods noted that the \"precise nature of [the State/ADE's] financial and oversight responsibilities must await further refinement of the consolidation plan and development of a budget for such consolidated district.\" Id. at 1228. PCSSD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE appealed Judge Woods' decisions inLRSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, and LRSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220. The Eighth Circuit, sitting en bane, affirmed Judge Woods' finding on liability for interdistrict constitutional violations by PCSSD,'NLRSD, and the State/ ADE, but reversed his remedy of consolidation33 on the ground that, while the interdistrict violations of the Constitution called for an interdistrict remedy, consolidation of the three school 32Tous, the cat had been belled--for the time being. 33Toe cat was not long belled. -18- A0 7 ?A districts was not required. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8th Cir. 1985).34 Rather than remanding the case to the district court for further findings and a detailed remedial decree, the Court spelled out its own interdistrictremedy.35 Id. at 434-36. Although this interdistrict remedy allowed LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to remain autonomous, it called for, among other things: changing boundaries between PCS SD and LRSD; revising attendance zones so that each school would reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district within a permitted variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race; encouraging intradistrict and interdistrict M to M transfers; and creating a limited number of magnet or specialty schools. Id. at 435-36. The principles of the interdistrict remedy outlined in the majority opinion later became the basis for the desegregation plans that were implemented in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. LRSD proceeded to develop a \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan, which was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987 (docket no. 739). Under this plan, LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance 34Judge Woods later wrote an article in the Arkansas Law Review critiquing the Eighth Circuit's decision. Judge Henry Woods and Beth Deere, Reflections on the Little Rock School Case, 44 Ark. L. Rev. 971 (1991). 35In a separate opinion, Judge Richard S. Arnold made the following observation about the remedy fashioned by the majority: The District Court (though we are today disagreeing with some ofits conclusions) is presided over by a scholarly and distinguished judge. That court, not this one, is in the best position to write a decree. Instead, a decree today springs full-grown from the brow of this Court, a decree that will, I dare say, startle all the parties to this case, including even those (if there are any) who like what they see. LRSD, 778 F.2d at 437 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). -19- l\\07?A zone. After a student was assigned to a school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus 12.5% of the black student population at the school. The plan also provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two junior high, and two high schools), with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. Finally, the plan established a Magnet Review Committee, with representatives of each of the three districts, along with a non-voting member representing Joshua and the Knight Intervenors.36 The controlled choice plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year (docket no. 670). While the controlled choice plan was intended to create racial balance, it resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. For that reason and others, Judge Woods later found the plan to be \"ill-conceived.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989), rev'd., 921 F.2d 1371 (1990). LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year, which all parties agreed would be a \"stabilizing year'' to allow LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. Id. With that understanding, Judge Woods approved LRSD's proposed desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year. Id. D. The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans After long and difficult negotiations that began in 1988, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and the State/ADE agreed to a global settlement of all aspects of this case. In the spring of 1989, 36The Knight Intervenors are members of the LRSD Classroom Teachers Association. -20- ii A072A the parties submitted the following final settlement documents37 to Judge Woods: (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement,38 which, among other things, fixed the State/ADE's total financial liability to the three school districts to be an amount \"not to exceed $129, 750,000\";39 and (b) separate comprehensive \"Settlement Plans\" for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD and a comprehensive \"lnterdistrict Settlement Plan.'\"'0 Judge Woods rejected each of the four separate Settlement Plans41 and the 1990 Settlement Agreement,42 as submitted; 31See footnote 3, supra, for an explanation of the terminology I will use in referring to these settlement documents. 38A copy of the 1990 Settlement Agreement is attached to LRSD's and Joshua's \"Joint Motion\" seeking approval of that agreement (docket no. 1174). 39The 1990 Settlement Agreement contained detailed prov1s1ons governing the State/ADE's role in funding and implementing the separate LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Interdistrict Settlement Plans. Among other things, the State agreed to pay the three school districts a total of not more than $129,750,000. All of the parties agreed to release all claims against each other and to dismiss this case, with prejudice, as to each party. 40 As indicated previously, these four Settlement Plans contained the detailed desegregation obligations that LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD contractually agreed to implement under the district court's supervision. See footnote 3, supra. 41 Judge Woods refused to approve the Settlement Plans because he believed they were \"facially unconstitutional\" and outside the mandate of the Eighth Circuit: In LRSD 's proposed plan almost one-fourth of the elementary schools are contemplated to be all black. The entire mandatory busing burden at the elementary level for desegregation purposes falls on black children. . . . All of the historically \"black\" schools lie east ofUniversity A venue, and all are proposed to be all-black incentive schools. Double funding is promised for the all-black schools. Yet it is impossible to determine from the submissions how the funds will be spent. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1169. 42Judge Woods refused to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement because it was \"contingent upon legislative approval and a legislative appropriation to fund it. I cannot in good conscience accept this bill as having passed.\" LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1 164. -21- ~-0 72A ordered the parties to implement a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan; appointed Eugene Reville to the position of Metropolitan Supervisor; and conferred upon Mr. Reville a wide array of powers over all three school districts that, in many respects, closely resembled consolidation--the remedy the Eighth Circuit had previously rejected. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1164-69. Shortly after Judge Woods entered his decision, the Arkansas Legislature passed a bill funding the over $100,000,000 that the State/ADE was obligated to pay to the three school districts under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. Based on this new development, the parties resubmitted the Settlement Agreement to Judge Woods for approval. On December 11, 1989, Judge Woods entered an Order which added certain new conditions to the Settlement Agreement; approved it, as modified; and directed the parties to carry out its terms. LRSD v. PCSSD, 726 F. Supp. 1544, 1549-51 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Judge Woods' December 11 Order also specifically disapproved that portion of the Settlement Agreement which called for LRSD to pay $2,000,000 of the $3,150,000 in attorneys' fees that the parties had agreed to pay to Joshua's counsel. Id. at 1554-56.43 Each of the school districts and Joshua appealed the district court's decisions to the Eighth Circuit, which reversed and remanded the case with instructions to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the four Settlement Plans, as submitted by the parties. LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371. In reaching that decision, the Court made a number of important rulings that have had a profound 43Under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement, Joshua's counsel was to be paid attorneys' fees of $3,150,000, which the parties agreed should be allocated as follows: LRSD: $2,000,000; the State/ADE: $750,000; PCSSD: $300,000; and NLRSD: $100,000. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -22- influence on future developments in the case. First, the Court noted that the appeal arose from settlements agreed to by all the parties (a \"most important fact\") and that \"[t]he law strongly favors settlements\" which should be \"hospitably'' received: This may be especially true in the present context--a protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties, especially the defendants. Id. at 1383. As further support for that conclusion, the Court made the following observation: This is, after all, no ordinary litigation. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, its lawyers and its predecessors, have vigorously prosecuted this case and its ancestors for more than 30 years. Absent an extremely good reason--and we have been given none--we are reluctant to disregard their judgment as to what is best for their own clients. Id. at 1386. Second, the Court explicitly recognized theimportantroleof futuremonitoringin the case and the need for it to continue \"for a long time\": \"In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervision--monitoring, at least--for a long time.\" Id. at 13 83 ( emphasis added). The Court also emphasized the importance of the district court ensuring that \"the settlement plans [are] scrupulously adhered to,\" that monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments.\" Id. at 1386. Third, the Court recognized that \"a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored.\" Id. at 1388. Therefore, the Court directed the creation of the ODM ''to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate.\" Id. -23- A07.2A_ Finally, the Court reversed Judge Woods' decision on attorneys ' fees and awarded counsel for Joshua $3,150,000, the full amount of attorneys' fees provided for under the Settlement Agreement. These attorneys' fees were allocated and payable among the parties as follows: LRSD ($2,000,000);44 State/ ADE ($750,000); PCS SD ($300,000); and NLRSD ($100,000). Id. at 1390. In an Order entered July 6, 1990, Judge Woods concluded that, because he was \"unable to successfully implement a plan to bring equity to the children of this county under the restrictions imposed by the Court of Appeals,\" the time had come \"for another judge to assume the burden of this litigation since it is my unalterable decision to recuse.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F. Supp. 632, 636 (E.D. Ark. 1990). Later that day, the case was reassigned, by random selection, to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (docket no. 1373). E. LRSD's Implementation Oflts Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And 1995 Section IV of the Settlement Agreement explicitly provided that the State/ADE \"conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A.\" Attachment A was a \"Release of All Claims Against the State,\" pursuant to which all parties to this litigation released all claims they might have against the State/ ADE relating \"to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas.\" Attachments B, C, and D were identical releases that ran in favor of LRSD, PCSSD, and \"\"The State/ADE agreed to advance LRSD's share of these attorneys' fees, which were to be deducted from payments the State/ADE owed LRSD under Section VI of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -24- A072A /gp-'L8Ja2}__ NLRSD. Finally, Attachments A, B, C, and D each contained the same language providing that this action (LR-C-82-866) \"is to be dismissed with prejudice\" as to the State/ ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD. Thus, the Settlement Agreement expressly provided for the dismissal of this case, with prejudice, \"except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. \" Attachments A, B, C, and D to the Settlement Agreement (docket no. 1174) (emphasis added). On the date the Eighth Circuit entered its decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans, only the State/ ADE had moved to be dismissed, with prejudice, as a party to this action.45 Thus, one of Judge Wright's first rulings in this case was a January 18, 1991 Order that: (1) dismissed the State/ADE as a party to this action \"pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement\"; and (2) converted the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor to the ODM, which she \"vested with the authority to monitor the school districts' compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modification of, or addition to, such plans and agreements\" ( docket no. 1418). Ann Marshall, Anna Hart, Polly Ramer, and Linda Bryant, all of whom previously worked for Mr. Reville in the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor, were allowed to \"continue in their present positions subject to the later approval of 45ln its December 12, 1990 decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and four separate Settlement Plans, the Eighth Circuit directed the district court to \"enter a fresh order dismissing the State as a party pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" LRSD, 921 F .2d at 1394. Under the explicit language of the Settlement Agreement, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD were each entitled to the entry of a similar order dismissing them, with prejudice, as parties to this action. Forreasons that are not apparent from a review of the record, LRSD waited until November 30, 1995, to move for an order dismissing this case with prejudice (docket no. 2573). See discussion infra at pp. 31-32. On January 26, 1998, Judge Wright entered an Order ( docket no. 3109) pursuant to which LRSD was dismissed, with prejudice, as a party to this action and the case was administratively terminated ( docket no. 3110). -25- An\"'\"\" the court-appointed monitor.\" In a Memorandum Opinion entered February 28, 1991 ( docket no. 1442), the district court made it clear that, even though the State had now been dismissed as a party, it remained obligated to comply with its settlement obligations, which \"when understood in conjunction with the language in both the Eighth Circuit's order of December 12, 1990, and this Court's order of January 18, 1991, also obligate the State to continue funding the ODM\" by making the annual contribution of $200,000 required in Judge Woods' June 27, 1989 Order.46 Likewise, LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD were required to continue their annual funding of the ODM on a per pupil pro-rated basis. On April 5, 1991, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order(docket no. 1459) that appointed Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor, at an annual salary of$98,000.47 46In an Order entered August 18, 1993 ( docket no. 194 7), Judge Wright emphasized that, while the State/ ADE was no longer a formal party in this action, \"it is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the settlement plans.\" In an Order entered December 10, I 993 ( docket no. 2045), Judge Wright held that the State agreed not only to the obligations contained in the 1990 Settlement Agreement, but also to the obligations contained in.the May 31, 1989 letter from its counsel, H. William Allen, which is referred to in Secti0n III of the 1990 Settlement Agreement as the \"Arkansas Department of Education monitoring plan.\" In their pleadings, the parties often refer to this latter document as \"the Allen letter.\"  47The first budget Judge Woods approved for the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor was for fiscal year July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. That budget totaled $353,710.24 and included Mr. Reville's salary of $98,500, plus the salary and overhead for four other employees (docket no. 1246). Over the next ten years, the budget for the ODM more than doubled to reach $784,188 for fiscal year 2000-01. The staffing of the ODM also more than doubled to reach ten employees. As indicated previously, under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the State/ADE was required to pay $200,000, annually, as its share of the cost of the ODM. The balance of the ODM budget was paid by LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD on a pro-rata basis that was calculated based upon the percentage of students in Pulaski County who attended each of the three school districts. For example, the ODM's 2000-01 fiscal year budget of$784,188 was allocated among the parties as follows: -26- A072A During the first few months of 1991 , LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua entered into negotiations that resulted in numerous modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. It was the parties' position that they were authorized to make those changes based upon language in the Eighth Circuit's December 12, 1990 decision providing that the parties were \"free, by agreement, to modify the settlement plans .. . subject, of course, to the approval of the District Court.\" LRSD, 921 F.2dat 1393 n. 15. Subsequently, the parties submitted the modified Settlement Plans to the district court for approval. On June 21, 1991 , Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order rejecting all of the $784,188 - 200,000 (State/ADE payment) $584,188 LRSD's share (47.64% of total Pulaski County enrollment) PCSSD's share (35 .36% of total Pulaski County enrollment) NLRSD's share (I 7.00% of total Pulaski County enrollment) $278,307.16 206,568.88 99,311.96 $584, I 88.00 On September 28, 2001 , Judge Wright entered an Order ( docket no. 3 522) approving the ODM's budget for the current fiscal year, which is $707,071, This budget included a 5% pay raise for all employees, which totaled $21,042. Ms. Marshall's salary increased from $111,131 to $116,688 (docket no. 3509). Since the creation of the ODM, the district court has approved the following budgets: I. 1989-90 $353,710.24 (docket no. 1246) 2. 1990-91 $293,833.74 (docket nos. 1391 \u0026amp; 1405) 3. 1991-92 $591,557.52 (docket no. 1497) 4. 1992-93 $578,060.81 (docket nos. 1822 \u0026amp; 1836) 5. 1993-94 $646,617.00 (docket nos. 2055 \u0026amp; 2155) 6. 1994-95 $661 ,768.00 (docket nos. 2359 \u0026amp; 2380) 7. 1995-96 $631 ,273.00 (docket nos. 2567 \u0026amp; 2599) 8. 1996-97 $730,756.00 (docket nos. 2852 \u0026amp; 3001) 9. 1997-98 $730,716.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 10. 1998-99 $751 ,639.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 11. 1999-00 $764,872.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp; 3364) 12. 2000-01 $784,188.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp; 3364) 13. 2001-02 $707,071.00 (docket nos. 3509 \u0026amp; 3522) Thus, in the twelve years since its creation, the ODM has requested that LRSD, PCS SD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE pay for budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. As the largest of the three school districts, LRSD has been required to pay approximately 35% of the total cost of the ODM. -27- \"legion of proposed modifications\" to the Settlement Plans on the ground that they fell \"outside the narrow realm of modifications and adjustments deemed permissible by the Eighth Circuit [in its December 12, 1990 decision].\" LRSD, 769 F. Supp. at 1483, 1489.48 On July 15, 1991, the district court entered a lengthy Memorandum and Order denying the parties' motion to reconsider its rejection of their proposed modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491. In doing so, Judge Wright made it clear that: (a) she disagreed with the parties' position that the Settlement Plans are \"fluid, open to continual and considerable revision as long as the parties agree and the changes are not facially unconstitutional\"; and (b) she viewed the Eighth Circuit's approval of the Settlement Plans as being \"akin to establishing a benchmark ... a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court.\" Id. at 1494. LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Joshua appealed on the ground that the district court's decisions \"confined them within limits that are too narrow, and that all of their proposed changes, being constitutional, workable, and fair, should have been approved.\" 48 Among the changes the parties sought to make in the four 1990 settlement plans were the following: (1) deleting from PCSSD's settlement plan major portions of the section on special education, especially concerning handicapped children; (2) eliminating provisions in PCSSD's settlement plan addressing issues related to black students being disciplined disproportionately; (3) removing several programs from PCSSD's settlement plan aimed at improving student achievement; (4) deleting from PCSSD's settlement plan the parties' agreement to abide by fourteen \"guiding principles\" which apply to the \"process of permanent plan development\"; (5) eliminating from LRSD's settlement plan science and social studies as core areas emphasized in remediation programs at the secondary level; (6) changing LRSD's settlement plan to limit the four-year-old program originally scheduled for all schools by 1993-94 to only eleven schools, with a promise that a \"long-range implementation plan will be developed for additional four-year-old classes\"; (7) changing LRSD's settlement plan to delay the development of parent home study guides and computer managed instructional technology for tracking student progress; (8) changing LRSD' s settlement plan by eliminating staff positions for program specialist and specialist for alternative classrooms; and (9) changing the interdistrict plan to reduce from six to four the number of interdistrict schools planned for the future. LRSD, 7 69 F. Supp. at 1484-87. -28-  I A072A / C-uo/oo.\\.. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d at 255. In affirming in part and reversing in part, the Eighth Circuit noted that \"[t]here is much in the District Court's opinions with which we agree,\" including the observation that the 1989 settlement \"should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case.\" Id. However, the Court went on to hold that the district court was \"too strict with itself' in not allowing the parties to modify details of those settlement plans that did not affect the three school districts' \"major substantive commitments to desegregation\": The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed . . . . If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation, the District Court has the authority to consider it. Id. at 256.49 Finally, to provide guidance to the district court, the Eighth Circuit set forth seven elements that form the \"essence and core\" of the Settlement Plans and from which there can be \"no retreaf': It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools; (2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable; (3) operation of the agreed nlJffiber of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable; (4) intradistrict desegregation of PCS SD according to the agreed timetable; (5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races; ( 6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools; and (7) appropriate involvement of parents. 49 As indicated supra at footnote 3, the district court and the parties generally have referred to the 1989 settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1990 Settlement Plans because the Eighth Circuit did not approve those settlement documents until December 12, 1990. Regardless of the year used to reference these documents, the Eighth Circuit and the district court are referring to the same Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans. -29- AOZ2A Id. ( emphasis added). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright entered an Order approving most of the proposed modifications to LRSD's 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan, which the parties referred to as \"LRSD's May 1992 Desegregation Plan\" and the \"May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan.\" Judge Wright attached copies of both of these Plans to her May 1, 1992 Order (docket no. 1587). LRSD's implementation of its obligations under the 1992 Plans did not always go smoothly. For example, on March 19, 1993, Judge Wright delivered a strong statement to LRSD's School Board and attorneys explaining the importance ofLRSD fully and completely implementing its desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans: Since the time of victory by the Little Rock School District in this case, when the Court of Appeals granted almost every facet of relief requested by Little Rock, the Little Rock School District has shown a tendency to drag its feet and act as if it had lost, rather than won, the litigation which it instituted. The Little Rock School District and the other school districts are in court because the Little Rock School District won its case and won the relief it requested. Yet the major complainer, the chief whiner, the number one barrier to a legitimate declaration of a unitary desegregated school system is the victorious complaining party, the Little Rock School District. The biblical reference, in a different context, is to the effect that if you ask, you will receive. Well, you asked, you got it, and it is the basic job of this Court to see that you receive it in full measure. * * * I have never seen, heard or read of a case in which the victors conducted themselves like the vanquished -- until now. If we have to have two full hearings a month, in which Board members are required to be present, then we will do so. We will do everything that is required to see that you take the medicine to achieve the cure that you asked the Federal Courts to give you. Judge Wright's Statement to LRSD Board members and Counsel at 2-3 and 6, attached as -30- A072A Exhibit I to docket no. 2730.50 Between 1991 and 1996, almost all of the district court's Orders involving LRSD related to the following issues: the approval ofLRSD's annual budgets (docket nos. 1759, 1897, 1958, 2216, 2280, 2319, and 2709); LRSD's closing of certain elementary schools (docket nos. 1926 and 2351); and LRSD's designation and construction of the interdistrict and magnet schools called for under the Settlement Plans ( docket nos. 1550, 1832, 1848, 1895, 2225, and 2329). During this period of time, the Eighth Circuit also entered several important decisions that: ( 1) extended school district millages under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F .2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992); (2) upheld the new zoning plan for electing school board members for LRSD and PCSSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 1995); and (3) clarified language in the 1990 Settlement Agreement regarding the State's funding obligations to LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). On November 30, 1995, LRSD filed a Motion for Order of Dismissal ( docket no. 2573), requesting the district court to dismiss this case, with prejudice, pursuant to Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement.51 Attachment B stated, in pertinent part: It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, :Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School 50In People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 246 F.3d I 073, 1078 (7th Cir. 2001 ), Judge Posner observed that \"state and local officials are under no duty to love the chains that federal judges, however justifiably, fasten upon them.\" In this case, it is more than a little ironic that LRSD has forged each link in the chains that have bound it for the last thirteen years. 51 As indicated previously, Attachment Bis a fully executed Release pursuant to which all parties agreed to release any and all claims they had against LRSD arising from or relating to this litigation. -31- A072A ~  ._a _JOftL.___.. District No. I, et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock School District (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement ( docket no. 1174). In seeking that relief, LRSD acknowledged that the dismissal would not affect the district court's jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of its . desegregation obligations or to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement or the terms of the Settlement Plans. On March 11 , 1996, the district court entered a Memorandum and Order ( docket no. 2640) denying LRSD's Motion for Order of Dismissal on the ground that: The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects ofits agreements (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. LRSD appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit. I On December 15, 1997, the Court reversed and retiianded the case to the district court with instructions to enter an order dismissing the case with prejudice, as provided for under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement. LRSD v. PCSSD, 131 F.3d 1255 (8th Cir. 1997). In reaching this decision, the Court stated the following: Although we can well understand the frustration the district court has experienced over the years in carrying out our instructions, we conclude that the District's motion should have been granted. As we held in our 1992 decision, the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case. See Little Rock -32- I I : I A072A School District, 971 F.2d at 165. As the agreement specifically provides, the district court is permitted (and indeed must, in order to comply with our instructions), to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the desegregation plans. Moreover, the desegregation plaintiffs may bring proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans. In short, the entry of such an order would do nothing to relieve the three districts of their continuing obligation to honor their commitments as set forth in the settlement agreement and the plans. Id. at 1257-58 (footnote omitted). On January 26, 1998, the district court entered an Order ( docket no. 3109) that dismissed this case and \"cases consolidated herein, including, but not limited to, Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clarkv. Board of Education ofLRSD,\" with prejudice, as to LRSD and \"its current and former board members named in this litigation.\" The district court also entered a Memo to the File ( docket no. 3110) stating that, because the Plaintiff in this case was dismissed with prejudice, \"the Clerk is instructed to administratively terminate this case,\" but to \"keep the case files open and in their current location in the Clerk's office\" so that the Court can continue to perform its ongoing duties regarding the supervision and implementation of the desegregation plans. F. Joshua's Request For An Interim Award Of Attorneys' Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement On November 22, 1995, counsel for Joshua moved for an interim award ofattomeys' fees and costs in the amount of $805,611.81 for monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuit approved the settlement of this case on December 12, 1990 ( docket no. 2565). Counsel for Joshua later reduced the amount of this request to $795,301.81 ( docket no. 2791) and argued that it should be apportioned among the three Pulaski County school districts as follows: LRSD: 75% to 80%; NLRSD: 5% to 10%; and PCS SD: 15% to 20%--with the final percentages totaling -33- ~-072A 100% (docket no. 2792). LRSD filed a Response and Supporting Memorandum of Law (docket nos. 2636 and 2637) challenging Joshua's right to be awarded any attorneys' fees or costs for post-settlement monitoring activities. LRSD argued that, as a part of the consideration for LRSD paying Joshua's counsel $2,000,000 in attorneys' fees in connection with the 1990 settlement, Joshua's counsel had specifically agreed, on the record, that they would not seek future fees from LRSD for monitoring activities during the life of the settlement plans. In support of its position, LRSD relied upon the following colloquy between counsel and the Eighth Circuit appellate panel during oral argument in LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371 : NORMAN CHACHKIN, ATTORNEY FOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS: I just want to make one other observation and Mr. Heller can confirm this. Although it is not written into the settlement agreement we are happy to confirm it here and to be bound by it. The agreement between Little Rock and Joshua was that the fee payment from the Little Rock School District would also cover out of the court monitoring activities by the attorneys for Joshua during the life of the settlement plans so long as it wasn't necessary to go back to court. If the settlement plans go forward as Mr. Walker suggested, the parties are committed to a monitoring system and committed to working together to ease any implementation problems and avoid any difficulties. That 's going to take attorney time. We have committed to Little Rock that we will not seek any fees from them for those activities unless it is necessary to go back to court for enforcement purposes and in that instance we '11 simply be free to make an application if we think we 're entitled to it. JUDGE RICHARD S. ARNOLD: Alright, thank you. Now, Mr. Heller, you are recognized. -34- ~ _ AO_Z2A_ CHRIS HELLER, A TIORNEY FOR LRSD: * * * I'd like to confirm what Mr. Chachkin said about the agreement. Because of the responsibilities assigned to the Joshua Intervenors in our settlement plans, there is significant work for them to do over the next six or seven years, and our agreement on the fees did contemplate that there would [be] no further payment for that work. (Emphasis added.) In a Memorandum Opinion and Order (docket no. 2821) filed on September 23, 1996, Judge Wright concluded that LRSD and Joshua contractually agreed that the $2,000,000 in attorneys' fees paid by LRSD in connection with the 1990 settlement also covered all monitoring activities performed by Joshua's counsel during the life of the Settlement Plans. Therefore, Judge Wright ruled that Joshua's counsel was not entitled to recover any attorneys' fees from LRSD for performing monitoring activities. On October 3, 1996, Joshua's counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Fee Petition (docket no. 2833) and supporting Memorandum of Law (docket no. 2834), in which he urged the district court to award attorneys' fees under the \"bad faith\" exception to .the general rule that, absent a statute or enforceable contract, litigants must pay their own attomeys'.fees. On March 24, 1997, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshua's Motion for Reconsideration. On April 22, 1997, counsel for Joshua filed a Notice of Appeal (docket no. 2966) of the district court's March 24, 1997 Order denying his request for interim attorneys' fees. I will return to discuss the final resolution of this issue later in this decision. -35- A072A G. LRSD's First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction On May 17, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2665) and supporting Brief (docket no. 2666). In these pleadings, LRSD argued that: (1) it was only required to implement its desegregation obligations under its Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan for six years; (2) it had implemented the Settlement Plan, beginning with the 1990-91 school year, and \"the six year term of the Plans will expire at the end of the 1995-96 school year''; and (3) \"LRSD has implemented in good faith many desegregation plans for more than three decades. LRSD was a substantially unitary school district in 1982, but it nevertheless filed this interdistrict litigation in a good faith effort to maintain a biracial public school system in Little Rock. A recent and exhaustive audit ofLRSD's desegregation obligations shows that LRSD is in substantial compliance with the Plans.\" Docket no. 2665. On August I, 1996, Joshua filed a Memorandum Opposing LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2730) in which they challenged LRSD's contention that the 1990 Settlement Plans called for a six-year implementation period. In support of their position, Joshua pointed out that no provision in any of the settlement documents limited LRSD's implementation of its desegregation obligations to six years. Joshua also argued that LRSD had failed to discharge its burden of establishing \"the requisite implementation of the court-approved settlement.\" On September 23, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order (docket no. 2821) denying LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction on the grounds that: (1) the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans do not contain any provision that allowed LRSD to terminate \"its duty to comply with the settlement plans after ... six years;\" and (2) -36- LRSD failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had \"substantially complied\" with its obligations under the Settlement Plans. The district court went on to urge LRSD and Joshua to modify ''the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable\" so that LRSD could better position itself to argue that it is entitled to unitary status and relief from court supervision: Instead of presenting substantial evidence of its compliance with its goals as set forth in the plan, the LRSD submits arguments that it has achieved unitary status because data from the LRSD compares favorably with data from districts which have been declared unitary. The Court would be inclined to agree with the LRSD with respect to many of these arguments if the LRSD were not contractually bound by the plan which it voluntarily adopted. The Court has encouraged the parties to consider modifying those parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. The Court has provided the parties with the testimony of experts to assist in the modification process. Instead, the LRSD has used the testimony of these experts to ask the Court to end Court jurisdiction without first proceeding with plan modifications. The Court cannot so easily relieve the district of its contractual obligations. Once again the Court invites the parties to follow procedures to modify the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. Docket no. 2821 at 12 (emphasis in original). On December 6, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Plan Development Period ( docket no. 2878) that requested Judge Wright: (I) to allow a six to nine month period for LRSD to concentrate its efforts to develop plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district; (2) to allow LRSD to use the ODM as a consultant to participate in the development of plan modifications in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignments, and resolution of discipline issues; and (3) to withhold any further monitoring of the LRSD desegregation plan during this six to nine month period. In support of its Motion, LRSD noted that the Knight lntervenors, PCSSD, and NLRSD supported its request. -37- A072A ~ - LB,,_v_ On December 18, 1996, Joshua filed a Response ( docket no. 2891) that did not oppose LRSD's request for an interval of time to develop a new desegregation plan, but expressed reservations about ODM, \"as an ann of the court,\" participating in the negotiations between the parties. Joshua also urged Judge Wright to appoint additional monitors to work on a matter of particular concern to them--the alleged \"ill-treatment of class members.\" On December 27, 1996, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2901) granting LRSD's Motion. In this Order, Judge Wright held that: (1) LRSD \"will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan\"; and (2) ODM can advise LRSD and other parties during the negotiations for plan modifications and ODM can \"participate in negotiations as a facilitator,\" but \"ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party.\" Judge Wright also denied Joshua's request to hire \"additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members.\" December 27, 1996 Order at 3 (docket no. 2901). H. The Perplexing Final Resolution Of Joshua's Request For Still More Attorneys' Fees FromLRSD On September 26, 1997, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ( docket no. 3049) and a supporting Memorandum Brief ( docket 1.10. 3050). After Joshua objected to a number of provisions in the proposed revised plan, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. As part of these negotiations, LRSD and Joshua took up the still unresolved issue of Joshua's request for $795,301 in attorneys' fees for performing post-settlement monitoring -38- : I ' ' A072A activities, which was pending on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. 52 On January 21, 1998, LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ( docket no. 3107) in which they admitted that ongoing negotiations were taking place on the attorneys' fees issue: \"Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present, and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation.\" January 21, 1998 Joint Motion at 2 ( docket no. 3107). See also Renewed Joint Motion for Approval ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan filed on March 23, 1998 (docket no. 3136). On February 27, 1998, the Eighth Circuit entered a Mandate (docket no. 3125) which granted \"the stipulation of the parties for dismissal of the appeal\" of Judge Wright's March 24, 1997 Order denying Joshua's request for interim attorneys' fees. The entry of this voluntary Judgment dismissing Joshua's appeal of the attorneys' fees issue strongly suggests that, sometime prior to February 27, 1998, LRSD and Joshua arrived at a settlement of that issue. In a letter agreement dated June I 0, 1998, 53 LRSD and Joshua formally documented their 52 As indicated previously, on April 22, 1997, Joshua appealed Judge .Wright's Order denying their requested interim attorneys' fees ( docket no. 2966). At the time the parties entered into these negotiations, that appeal was still pending before the Eighth Circuit. 53The first time this letter agreement became part of the record in this case was on March 15, 2002, when LRSD attached it as Exhibit 7 to its Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). Thus, before her decision to step down in this case, Judge Wright was never made aware of the facts surrounding the agreement that LRSD would pay Joshua's counsel $700,000 in attorneys' fees for past monitoring work, plus $48,333.33 per year for three years of future monitoring work. Furthermore, absent LRSD 's decision to make the June 10, 1998 letter part of the record, I would have very likely missed the troubling implications associated with the confluence of agreements on both the Revised Plan and the issue of Joshua's past and future attorneys' fees. Therefore, my -39- A072A settlement of all past and future claims for attorneys ' fees and costs as follows: LRSD will make the following payments [to counsel for Joshua] for past fees and costs: $100,000.00 on or before June 30, 1998; $100,000.00 on or before August 31, 1998; and $500,000.00 on or before October 31 , 1998. For fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998. The payments described in this letter will constitute full and complete payment in satisfaction of all past or future claims for attorney's fees and costs except as specifically set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. June 10, 1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to LRSD's Memorandum Briefin Support of Motion for an hnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( docket no. 3581) ( emphasis added). 54 Although not directly relevant to the issue of unitary status, I can think of no good explanation for LRSD's decision to voluntarily pay Joshua's counsel an additional $700,000 in attorneys' fees for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright had ruled he was not entitled to be paid anything from LRSD. On top of this, one of Joshua's own attorneys, Mr. Chachkin, previously had admitted during oral argument before the Eighth Circuit that the attorneys' fees paid under the 1990 Settlement Agreement included future attorneys' time raising this issue now, based upon facts that were not known to Judge Wright w!Jile she presided over this case, should in no way be construed as a criticism of Judge Wright for not raising this issue earlier. As I have emphasized, it was LRSD's decision to file its counsel's June 10, 1998 letter as an exhibit to its March 15, 2002 Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an hnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status that alerted me to this issue. 54As indicated previously, Joshua's counsel argued to Judge Wright that LRSD should be allocated 75% to 80% of his $795,301 in attorneys' fees associated with performing past monitoring activities ( docket no. 2792). If those attorneys' fees had been allocated on that basis, LRSD would have been responsible forpayingJoshua's counsel between $596,475 and $636,240. I am at a loss to understand why LRSD would agree, in the June l 0, 1998 letter, to voluntarily pay Joshua's counsel $700,000, almost $ I 00,000 more than the median amount Joshua's counsel originally sought to recover from LRSD for his post-settlement monitoring work. -40- A072A 113eYA/ expended in connection with monitoring activities.55 It appears to me that Judge Wright's wellreasoned Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 2821) denying Joshua's Request for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and her subsequent Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshua's Motion for Reconsideration placed LRSD in an excellent position to prevail on Joshua's appeal of the district court's rulings to the Eighth Circuit. Holding what seemed to be the winning hand on appeal, I find it passing strange that LRSD would voluntarily agree to pay Joshua's counsel an additional $700,000 for post-settlement monitoring work when, as stated above, one of Joshua's other attorneys admitted this work was already included in the $2,000,000 LRSD paid to Joshua's counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. I find it somewhat discomforting that LRSD and Joshua had a meeting of the minds on an essentially new desegregation settlement plan at the same time their attorneys were discussing the settlement of Joshua's counsel's request for a large interim award of attorneys' fees. However, I know of no facts establishing that the simultaneous negotiation of those two unrelated issues did not take place at arms length or involved a quid pro quo. From the inception of this case, Joshua's counsel has fought hard for his clients and has a well-documented record of zealously protecting their interests. I also rec~gnize that Joshua's counsel has manned the barricades of civil rights litigation in Arkansas for over four decades and that he has a reputation for never yielding on matters of principle. Accordingly, while I do not conclude that anything improper occurred in the simultaneous negotiation of these two unrelated issues, I do have a real concern about the public's perception of the timing of these events--which I fear has raised troubling questions and lingering doubts. 55See supra, pp. 34-35. -41- I also find it unsettling that, going forward, LRSD agreed to pay Joshua's counsel ''up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998,\" for \"fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" June 10, 1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581. At a minimum, all of the terms and conditions of such an unusual arrangement should have been spelled out in writing, with a clear statement regarding the duties, if any, that Joshua's counsel owed to LRSD, the party paying his fees formonitoringthe implementation of the Revised Plan, and whether, under this arrangement, LRSD and Joshua's counsel entered into an attorney-client relationship. In any case, at least one thing is clear from the June 10, 1998 letter agreement: In exchange for being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD, Joshua's counsel specifically agreed to undertake the obligation of monitoring all aspects ofLRSD's implementation of the Revised Plan. Subsequently, Joshua's counsel submitted to LRSD periodic \"Statements for Legal Services Rendered\" for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with his work \"implementing and monitoring\" the Revised Plan.56 See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581. According to Joshua's counsel's periodic statements for legal services, LRSD paid him a total of $124,861.15, which was billed in the following installments: July, 1998, through October, 1998: $16,111.12; November, 1998, through October, 1999: $48,333.33; November, 1999: $4,027.78; December, 1999: $4,027.78; January, 2000, through May, 2000: $20,138.90; June, 2000: $4,027.78; July, 2000: $4,027.78; August, 2000, through September, 2000: $8,055.56; October, 2000: $4,027.78; 56As discussed infra at pp. 57-59, at no point between the district court's approval of the Revised Plan on April 10, 1998, and thefilingofLRSD's Compliance Report on March 15,2001, did Joshua's counsel ever raise any of the compliance issues that are now before me, pursuant to  8.2 through 8.2.5 of the Revised Plan. -42- A072A November, 2000: $4,027.78; December, 2000: $4,027.78; and January, 2001: $4,027.78. See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581.57 Thus, for each month between July, 1998, and January, 2001, LRSD paid Joshua's counsel $4,027.78 for attorneys' fees incurred \"monitoring\" LRSD's implementation of the Revised Plan. For good reason, there is a widespread public perception that this case has become a decades-old cottage industry--and a large one at that--for lawyers. Over ten years ago, in Judge Woods' decision to step down from this case, he decried \"the many appeals perfected in this case, some of which have accomplished nothing but enrichment of the participating attorneys,\" and called the lawyer fees paid by the three districts \"grossly exorbitant.\" LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Since that time, things appear to have changed little, with all three school districts paying substantial annual attorneys' fees to their own lawyers and substantial annual payments to the ODM, whose requested annual budget for the last several years has been in the range of$700,000. At the same time, the threat of paying large future attorneys' fees to Joshua's counsel hangs like the sword of Damocles above the heads of all the parties.58 57The record fails to contain an explanation of why Joshua's counsel did not submit \"Statements for Legal Services Rendered\" for the months of February thr01;igh June, 2001. 58As everyone knows, Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the country and has always had difficulty finding funds for public education. Although LRSD is better off than many school districts in the State, it is by no means affluent. Like other school districts, it struggles each year to make ends meet. For example, during the last few years, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has reported on the need for the repairorrenovation of the basic infrastructure in many LRSD schools and on school teachers who have been forced to purchase pencils and other basic school supplies for their students. By my calculations, since 1990, counsel for Joshua has been paid $3,974,861 ($3,150,000 + $700,000 + $124,861). Over that same period of time, I would guess LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD have paid their own attorneys a total of at least $4,000,000. If my estimate is correct, that means, since 1990, the attorneys for all parties in this case have been paid at least $8,000,000. As indicated, supra at footnote 47, the ODM has submitted budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. -43- I- A072A ~ /RAV R/R?I All members of the professional group, who have directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case, are placed on notice that I intend to monitor closely the costs associated with this action. Being born and raised in Scott County, one of the poorest counties in Arkansas, I understand the meaning ofbeing careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that important point fixed in their minds from here on out. Thus, since 1990, the \"professional group\" in this case probably has been paid close to $16,000,000. Counsel for LRSD, Joshua, and the staff of the ODM know that LRSD grapples annually with funding and budget issues. They also know that the approximately $16,000,000 paid to them since 1990 has come from funds earmarked for the school children of this district. In making this observation, I in no way mean to imply that lawyers and monitors have not been necessary to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD properly implemented and \"scrupulously adhered to\" their desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans. My only point is that I would have hoped this \"professional group\" would have kept uppermost in their minds that every penny paid to them for their work in this case is one less penny available to help in the education of a child. Thus, I would have also hoped that the \"professional group\" would have been as frugal and judicious as possible in the expenditure of their time or budgeted funds. One of the ways the attorneys could have kept this covenant with the district's school children would have been to discount their normal hourly billing rates. In the case of the ODM, it might have foregone raises and minimized staff and office space requirements in the interest of bringing this case to a close as economically as possible. My review of the pleadings since 1990 has dashed all such utopian hopes. For example, Judge Woods cited the \"grossly exorbitant\" lawyer fees paid by the three school districts as the \"principal reason for [their] poor financial situation\" and noted that LRSD' s attorneys had billed \"31 days in a 30-day month.\" LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Similarly, Judge Wright noted in her September 23, 1996 Memorandum Opinion denying Joshua's motion for interim attorneys' fees that their counsel was attempting to bill his time at the rate of $250 per hour, which she found was not \"reasonable.\" September 23, 1996 Memorandum Opinion at footnote 6 (docket no. 2821). Likewise, the staff and budget for the ODM has more than doubled since 1989, even though the more streamlined obligations of the Revised Plan approved in early 1998 would seem to have required less monitoring ofLRSD's implementation of those obligations. Similarly, for the last few years, it appears NLRSD has been unitary and has required very little in the way of monitoring by the ODM. Thus, I would have expected annual reductions in the staff and budget for the ODM, beginning in 1998, and continuing through the current fiscal year. That has not happened. -44- A072A I. Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan On April 10, 1998, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order ( docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan. Importantly, Judge Wright held that the Revised Plan constituted a \"new consent decree or settlement agreement\" between LRSD and Joshua: The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan: shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U .S.D. C. No. LR-C-82- 866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. April 10, I 998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 3 (docket no. 3144) (emphasis added). Alternatively, Judge Wright concluded that, even if the Court considered the Revised Plan as a modification to the 1990 Settlement Plan,59 she would still approve the Revised Plan because 59 As indicated supra atp. 27, LRSD and Joshua agreed to certain changes in LRSD's 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. In a forty-four page Order entered on May 1, 1992 (docket no. 1587), Judge Wright approved most of those proposed modifications which were incorporated in the \"LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan\" and the \"May 1992 lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan.\" Judge Wright's April I 0, 1998 Memorandum Opinion fails to mention those Plans, which were the operative consent decrees LRSD was operating under at the time she entered her decision. -45- A072A I D- --- the parties had satisfied the standard for modifying a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992), and LRSD, 56 F .3d at 914. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Wright noted that LRSD had implemented certain aspects of the 1990 Settlement Plan so successfully that the district court had withdrawn supervision over those areas. 60 However, the court also recognized that some goals in the 1990 Settlement Plan\"[ were] out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan ... may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD.\" April 10, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 6 (docket no. 3144) (footnotes omitted). One such group of potentially unreachable goals cited by Judge Wright were the \"goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities [which] may never be met regardless of the effort put forth by LRSD.\" Id. See Testimony of Dr. Herbert J. Walberg at 17-25 (docket no. 2692); Testimony of Dr. David J. Armor at 18-39 (docket no. 2693); and Testimony of Dr. Gary Orfield at 25-31 ( docket no. 2768). J. LRSD's Implementation Of Its Obligations Under The Revised Plan Between April 10, 1998, and March 15, 2001, the date LRSD filed its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report seeking unitary status, LRSD and Joshua filed no substantive pleadings addressing any problems arising from LRSD 's implementation of its obligations under the Revised Plan. In fact, only three documents dealing with LRSD's 601n an Order entered on March 27, 1996 ( docket no. 2648), Judge Wright released LRSD from Court supervision and monitoring in the areas of Multicultural Curriculum (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 63-80), Vocational Education (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 98-105), and Computerized Transportation System (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 227-28). See also February 9, 1996, Stipulation for Order (docket no. 2626). -46- implementation of the Revised Plan were filed during that period of time. First, on August 11, 1999, the ODM filed a lengthy Report (docket no. 3289) on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan. This Report reviewed the status ofLRSD's implementation of all aspects of the Revised Plan, including the following areas that have special relevance to Joshua's opposition to LRSD's pending request for unitary status: Extracurricular Enrichment Activities (pp. 12-16); LearningEnvironment(pp. 20-22); Mathematics(pp. 27-31); Program Assessment (pp. 42-43); Reading and Language Arts (pp. 44-48); Remediation (pp. 49- 52); and Student Discipline (pp. 67-71 ). The ODM's \"Summary and Conclusions\" that followed each section of the Report indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan. Second, on April 18, 2000, LRSD filed a 129-page Interim Compliance Report (docket no. 3356 dated March 15, 2000). Although LRSD was not obliged to file this Report, it voluntarily did so for two stated reasons: (1) \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan\"; and (2) \"[t]he District hopes to receive comments and suggestions from interested persons as to the Distric;t's compliance with the Revised Plan and the format and content of this status report.\" Interim Compliance Report at 1 (docket no. 3356). The Interim Compliance Report set forth in detail all of the programs, policies, and procedures that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. The ODM did not file any comments or objections to anything contained in LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Likewise, nothing contained in that Report caused Joshua's counsel, -47- ! A072A who was being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD to monitor its implementation of the Revised Plan, to raise any compliance issues. Finally, no \"interested party'' raised any questions concerning whether, based on the programs, policies, and procedures described in the Interim Compliance Report, LRSD was in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. This silence, it seems to me, speaks rather eloquently. Third, on June 14, 2000, the ODM filed a 127-page Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in the LRSD (docket no. 3366).61 The introduction to this Report contained a broad disclaimer of what was not being evaluated: This document neither evaluates the district's discipline policies and procedures nor determines how the policies are followed at various schools. Moreover, the report does not measure the effectiveness of any program, training or practices the district may have instituted to address the need for all students to be disciplined fairly and equitably, regardless of their race or sex. While the disciplinary procedures are represented by the data are legitimate and important areas of inquiry, we have not examined them here. We do provide some additional information to explain the district's general approach to discipline and to set the context for our findings, but our report focuses on the LRSD's own records and what they reflect. Report of Disciplinary Sanctions at 1 (docket no. 3366).62 Furthermore, because LRSD maintained disciplinary records on only \"suspensions and expulsions,\" the Report was limited to an examination of LRSD's raw data, broken down by race and sex, for students who were 61The ODM prepared this Report as part of its ongoing monitoring of the way all three Pulaski County school districts imposed disciplinary sanctions on students. In previous years, the ODM had prepared similar Reports on NLRSD and PCSSD. Thus, the ODM's June 14 Report was not triggered by or related to anything in LRSD's March 15, 2000 Interim Compliance Report. 62By failing to evaluate and examine the many important areas covered by this disclaimer, the ODM substantially reduced the usefulness of its Report and made it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions from the Report that were not based on pure speculation. -48- I  I A072A ( suspended or expelled from each elementary school, junior high school, and high school during six school years, 1993-94 through 1998-99. While the data compiled in the Report revealed that a disproportionate number of AfricanAmerican male students were suspended or expelled at many schools, the lack of specific facts surrounding each suspension and expulsion (e.g., a description of the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary sanction, race of teacher or administrator issuing disciplinary sanction, socioeconomic background of student, etc.) made it impossible to determine, without speculation, the reason for this disparity. 63 Additionally, because LRSD administrators assigned many of the suspended or expelled students to alternative education programs64 but failed to maintain records documenting which suspended and expelled students were sent to those programs, it was impossible to determine from the Report how many days of school each of the suspended and expelled students actually missed. Finally, because the Report did not include any data for the 1999-00 school year, it was impossible to determine if converting LRSD's junior high schools to middle schools improved behavior problems and reduced the number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the Report made it clear that this change could affect future data: Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the district made a fundamental commitment to improving students' performance, both academic~lly and 63The preface to the Report made it clear that the disproportionate number of AfricanAmerican students suspended or expelled from school is a nationwide phenomenon. The Report also pointed out that the way students behaved in school was affected by a host of factors that were beyond the influence of school personnel, \"such as home environment, family values, and the level of socialization prior to starting school. ... \" Report at 6. Finally, the Report observed that: \"Another aspect of discipline that requires note is the tremendous increase in the number of single-parent households in our society. . . . This deficiency is particularly significant for adolescent males who live with only their mothers.\" Report at 7. 64See Report at 10-12. -49- A072A _ IJ3 D_ V A/A?\\ behaviorally, by converting to a middle school system (grades 6-8). Studies have shown that the grade 6-8 configuration is developmentally appropriate. The teaming practiced in middle schools is to provide a nurturing environment in which students can learn and also find help with the physical and emotional changes they are experiencing. Because the discipline data for 1999-2000 were not available at the time we prepared this report, we could not assess whether discipline and sanctions have changed in ways that might be attributable to the middle school approach. Report at 126. In the Report's \"Conclusions,\" the ODM made two primary criticisms of LRSD's disciplinary practices: (1) it had not maintained and compiled \"comprehensive data on all the discipline sanctions [which] may leave some problems uncovered, as well as thwart assessment of the extent to which the district is preventing racial discrimination in disciplinary actions overall\"; and (2) \"[ w ]bile the report data do not reflect overall serious behavior problems in LRSD, African-American males are being disciplined in disproportionately high numbers.\" Report at 125. The ODM also offered seven \"ideas . .. as suggestions for improving disciplinary procedures for all students in LRSD, while also reducing the over-representation ofblack students in disciplinary actions.\" Report at 127. K LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan On March 15, 200 I, LRSD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report ( docket no. 3410) and requested the court to declare it ''unitary with respect to all aspects of school operations.\" On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report ( docket no. 3447) in which they argued LRSD was not entitled to unitary status under the Revised Plan. On March 15, 2002, LRSD filed the pending Motion for an Immediate Declaration of -50- A072A ,~ --- Unitary Status (docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief (docket no. 3581). On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition to LRSD's Motion for hnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3604). On June 7, 2002, LRSD filed its Reply Brief (docket no. 3607). As indicated previously, under  11 of the Revised Plan, LRSD was entitled to the entry of an order declaring it unitary if no party challenged its substantial compliance with th~ Revised Plan. Because Joshua chose to challenge LRSD's \"substantial compliance,\" 11 of the Revised Plan imposed on them the burden of proof on that issue. Joshua's counsel has acknowledged that the Revised Plan imposed on his clients the burden of proving that, as of March 15, 2001, 65 LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. See Transcript of Proceedings on June 29, 2001, at 26 (docket no. 3461), and Transcript of Proceedings on July 9, 2001, at 26 (docket no. 3464). 65In its October 3, 200 I Order ( docket no. 3515), the district court required LRSD to elect between two options: Option!: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and- (B) Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Option 2: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; and (B) Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. LRSD filed a Response to the October 3, 2001 Order ( docket no. 3517) objecting ''to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court.\" Subsequently, LRSD advised Judge Wright that, without waiving its objections, it selected \"Option 2.\" Therefore, any evidence ofLRSD's \"compliance activities\" that took place after March 15, 2001, cannot be considered in deciding the question of unitary status. -51- A072A IAou A/0'\u0026gt;\\ rn. Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan In Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), they include a \"Seriatim Response to District's March 15, 2001 Compliance Report\" in which they list compliance problems or concerns with the following sections of the Revised Plan:  2.1 (LRSD's obligation of good faith);  2.1.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and 2.2.7 (LRSD's obligations regarding faculty and sta:fl);  2.3 (LRSD's obligations regarding student assignment);  2.4 (LRSD 's obligations regarding special education and related programs);  2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5 .3, and 2.5 .4 (LRSD' s obligations regarding student discipline);   2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.11. l (LRSD's obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, and guidance counseling); 2. 7 and 5 (LRSD's obligations regarding improving African-American academic achievement);  2.8 (parental involvement); and  3.6 (school construction and closing). Importantly, Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report was careful to note that their concerns regarding LRSD's compliance with faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing were based primarily on \"information and belief' or involved \"generalized suspicions\" regarding LRSD's future actions. After filing that Opposition, Joshua conducted consid~ble discovery to develop the facts to support their challenges to LRSD's request for unitary status. As indicated previously, before beginning the evidentiary hearings on Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's request for unitary status, Judge Wright instructed Joshua's counsel to present his argument beginning with his strongest first and proceeding to his weakest ( docket no. 3461 at 54- 55). During a hearing on July 9, 2001, which took place after the completion of the first two days -52- A072A ~ /1=1 ---- of testimony on July 5 and 6, 2001, Joshua's counsel stated that LRSD's three most serious areas of noncompliance under the Revised Plan were its failure to meet its obligations regarding: (1) good faith; (2) improvement of academic achievement for African-American students;66 and (3) improvement of the racial disparity in student discipline (docket no. 3464 at 26-29). During the evidentiary hearings on August 1 and 2, 2001, Joshua completed calling all of their witnesses on the issues ofLRSD's alleged substantial noncompliance with those three areas of the Revised Plan. At the beginning of the fifth day of evidentiary hearings on November 19, 2001, Judge Wright noted, on the record, that counsel for Joshua had \"rested his case\" on the first three areas  of LRSD's alleged noncompliance (docket no. 3558 at 14-15). After Judge Wright denied LRSD's Motion for Directed Verdict, it presented its case on November 19 and 20 (docket nos. 3558 and 3559). On December 11, 2001, Judge Wright conducted a hearing to schedule the remaining days of evidentiary hearings on Joshua's Opposition to LRSD 's request for unitary status ( docket no. 3560). During this hearing, Judge Wright agreed to allow Joshua and LRSD no more than five days to present additional testimony on what Joshua's counsel identified as the last three areas ofLRSD's alleged noncompliance with the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses; (2) .. extracurricular activities; and (3) guidance counseling. Judge Wright also agreed to allow Joshua to present non-cumulative testimony regarding: LRSD's alleged failure to comply with its overall obligation of good faith regarding its implementation of programs, policies, and procedures 66Part of Joshua's argument that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its obligation to improve the academic achievement of African-American students included the contention that LRSD had failed to make the annual \"assessments\" of the academic programs implemented to improve the achievement of African-American students as required by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. -53- A,_0 72_A_ _ _ ,. regarding advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling-, and how LRSD's programs, policies, and procedures governing advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling had adversely affected the academic achievement of Afiican-American students. I conducted the final three days of evidentiary hearings on those issues, beginning on July 22, 2002. At no point during those hearings, or during the six previous days of ev:identiary hearings, did Joshua present any evidence or arguments -to support the contentions in their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff( 2.1.1, 2.2-2.2.5, and 2.2.7); student assignment( 2.3); special education and related programs( 2.4); parental involvement( 2.8); and school construction and closing( 3.6). Joshua's failure to present any evidence to support their contention regarding LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with those sections of the Revised Plan requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments. In any case, Joshua clearly failed to maintain their burden of proving that LRSD failed to substantially comply with any of those particular sections of the Revised Plan. Thus, the detennination of LRSD 's request for unitary status turns on whether Joshua has ,' maintained their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the following obligations imposed on it under the Revised Plan: (I) good faith as set forth in  2.1; (2) student discipline as set forth in  2.5 through 2.5.4 and 2.12.2; (3) academic achievement of Afiican-American students as set forth in 2.7, 2.7.1, 5.1 through 5.8, and 2.12.2; ( 4) extracurricular activities as set forth in  2.6, 2.6.3, and 2.12.2; (5) advanced placement courses as set forth in 2.6, 2.6.2, and 2.12.2; and (6) guidance counseling -54- I AO~-- as set forth in  2.11.1. The provisions of the Revised Plan containing LRSD's obligations in these six disputed areas, along with other provisions of the Revised Plan that are relevant to the resolution of the issue of unitary status, are summarized below. A. LRSD's Obligation Of Good Faith Toe first obligation imposed on LRSD was to act in \"good faith.\" Because of the importance of this obligation to the question of unitary status, 2.1 of the Revised Plan ought, in fairness, to be quoted in its entirety: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. B. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Student Discipline Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 set forth LRSD's obligations regarding student discipline. Section 2.5 obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies, and/or procedures \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to discipline.\" Section 2.5.1 required LRSD to \"strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner,\" and 2.5.2 required LRSD to \"purge students discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery.\" Section 2.5.3 established the position of \"ombudsman,\" who was responsible for \"acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints ofrace-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions.\" Finally,  2.5.4 obligated LRSD to ''work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit -55- A072A IR-\u0026lt;\u0026gt;ID'\u0026gt;\\ frequent misbehavior.\" C. LRSD's Obligations To Improve And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students Section 2.7 contained LRSD's core obligation regarding the academic achievement of African-American students: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Very significantly, nowhere in this section or any other section of the Revised Plan does LRSD assume any obligation to narrow or close the academic achievement gap between white students and African-American students. In order to detennine the effectiveness of LRSD's academic programs designed to improve African-American achievement, Section 2. 7. l obligated LRSD to \"assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year.\" If the results of those assessments \"[reveal] that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program.\" D. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors Section 2.6 required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracunicular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program.\" Section 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 required LRSD to implement training programs to assist teac    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\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\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_57","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","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":["2002-09","2002-10"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"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/57"],"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\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nXVIII. WORK WITH THE PARTIES AND ODM TO DEVELOP PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ADE'S MONITORING AND REPORTING OBLIGATIONS (Continued) On August 2, 2000, the ADE met with the parties to discuss the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan and see where there was disagreement. The LRSD requested sixty (60) days to respond to the review of the plan. The ADE gave the parties 60 days to review the plan and submit written responses to it. The next meeting date was scheduled for October 2, 2000, at the ADE. On October 2, 2000, the ADE met with the parties to discuss the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. LRSD submitted a list of items concerning technical assistance. The ADE will respond to the items in the next meeting scheduled for November 15, 2000, at 1 :30 PM in the ADE auditorium. On November 16, 2000 the parties rescheduled the regular meeting at the request of the LRSD. Responses to the LRSD were presented in accordance with the time frame outlined. ADE staff from the School Improvement and Professional Development Section were present to answer questions regarding responses. Representatives from the PCSSD presented a list of modifications at that time. On February 12, 2001 , the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. On April 9, 2001 , the ADE Assistant Director for Accountability provided the State Board of Education with an update on the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee meeting held on April 3, 2001 . The Board supported and approved the report. On June 26, 2001 , Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, attended the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, reported on the status of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case. On September 14, 2001 , the ADE met with the parties to discuss the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan, and to identify new and retiring members of the committee. The next meeting is scheduled for October 17, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. in 303A at the ADE. On October 17, 2001 , the ADE met with the parties about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. Issues that had been brought up previously by the PCSSD were discussed. The next meeting is scheduled for November 27, 2001, at 2:30 p.m. at the ADE. On November 27, 2001 , the ADE met with the parties about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. Issues discussed included receiving a written response from the LRSD and the PCSSD with changes they want the ADE to include in the plan. Other issues dealt with technical assistance available through ORME and ACT for the three districts. In December, 2001 , the ADE made informal contacts with various committee members about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The next meeting with the parties about the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan is scheduled for February 27, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. at the ADE. 1 56 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21 , 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 15 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11 , 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting that was scheduled for January 10 was postponed. It has been rescheduled for February 14, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. On February 12, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for April 11 , 2002 in room 201 -A at the ADE. On April 11 , 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for July 11 , 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. 16 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 18, 2002, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, talked about section XV in the Project Management Tool (PMT) on Standardized Test Selection to Determine Loan Forgiveness. She said that the goal has been completed, and no additional reporting is required for section XV. Mr. Morris discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. He handed out a Court Order from May 9, 2002, which contained comments from U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr., about hearings on the LRSD request for unitary status. Mr. Morris also handed out a document from the Secretary of Education about the No Child Left Behind Act. There was discussion about how this could have an affect on Desegregation issues. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 10, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in room 201-A at the ADE. 17 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 A committee with in the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and final ize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 22 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001 , the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 2 3 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. On March 5, 2002, A letter was sent from the LRSD which mentioned Act 17 48 and Act 1667 passed during the 83rd Legislative Session which may impede desegregation. These laws will be researched to determine if changes need to be made. A letter was sent from the NLRSD on March 19, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation. On April 26, 2002, A letter was sent for the PCSSD to the ADE, noting that the district did not find any laws which impede desegregation except the \"deannexation\" legislation which the District opposed before the Senate committee. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMTwas the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: ( 1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 31 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. CJn April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 32 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 14, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 11 , 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 13, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 10, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 8, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 12, 2002, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. 33 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) ll~~~tA%.f~~lii~ii~\\1i.JKl-~!iil~~~~~Y!tE.l~~@Br~Yt~w~~'iin~:~P.Rr.QY~~ 34 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ER IC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding , \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i .e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001. Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001, the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001, there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001. A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001. Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001, ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001, ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21, 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling . 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001. Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher\". Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001. The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0 . Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 51 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On December 3-7, 2001 the ADE conducted grade 6 Benchmark scoring training for reading and math. Each school district was invited to send a math and a reading specialist. The training was held at the Holiday Inn Airport in Little Rock. On December 4 and 6, 2001 the ADE conducted Mid-Year Test Administrator Training for Algebra and Geometry. This was held at the Arkansas Activities Association's conference room in North Little Rock. On January 24, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by ADE compressed video with Fred Jones presenting. On January 31, 2002, the ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by NSCI satellite with Fred Jones presenting. On February 7, 2002, the ADE Smart Step co-sponsored the AR Association of Middle Level Principal's/ADE curriculum, assessment and instruction workshop with Bena Kallick presenting. On February 11-21, 2002, the ADE provided training for Test Administrators on the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Exams. The sessions took place at Forrest City, Jonesboro, Mountain Home, Springdale, Fort Smith, Monticello, Prescott, Arkadelphia and Little Rock. A make-up training broadcast was given at 15 Educational Cooperative Video sites on February 22. During February 2002, the LRSD had two attendees for the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The N LRSD and PCSSD each had one attendee at the Benchmark Exam training and one attendee for the End of Course Exam training. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 2, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. The ADE conducted the Smart Step quarterly meeting by compressed interactive video at the South Central Education Service Cooperative from 9:30 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on May 9, 2002. Telecast topics included creating a standards-based classroom and a seven-step implementation plan. The principal's role in the process was explained. 52 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Twenty-First Annual Curriculum and Instruction Conference, cosponsored by the Arkansas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and the Arkansas Department of Education, will be held June 24-26, 2002, at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas. \"Ignite Your Enthusiasm for Learning\" is the theme for this year's conference, which will feature educational consultant, Dr. Debbie Silver, as well as other very knowledgeable presenters. Additionally, there will be small group sessions on Curriculum Alignment, North Central Accreditation, Section 504, Building Level Assessment, Administrator Standards, Data Disaggregation, and National Board. The Educational Accountability Unit of the ADE hosted a workshop entitled \"Strategies for Increasing Achievement on the ACTAAP Benchmark Examination\" on June 13-14, 2002 at the Agora Center in Conway. The workshop was presented for schools in which 100% of students scored below the proficient level on one or more parts of the most recent Benchmark Examination. The agenda included presentations on \"The Plan-Do-Check-Act Instructional Cycle\" by the nationally known speaker Pat Davenport. ADE personnel provided an explanation of the MPH point program. Presentations were made by Math and Literacy Specialists. Dr. Charity Smith, Assistant Director for Accountability, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out sessions were held, in which school districts with high scores on the MPH point program offered strategies and insights into increasing student achievement. The NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. The Smart Start Summer Conference took place on July 8-9, 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. The Smart Start Initiative focuses on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Bena Kallick presented the keynote address \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Vivian Moore gave the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". Krista Underwood gave the presentation \"Put Reading First in Arkansas\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. 53 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Smart Step Summer Conference took place on July 10-11 , 2002, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center and Peabody Hotel. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The event included remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. After comments by the Director, Vivian Moore presented the keynote address \"Overcoming Obstacles: Avenues for Student Success\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On the second day, Bena Kallick presented \"Beyond Mapping: Essential Questions, Assessment, Higher Order Thinking\". Ken Stamatis presented \"Smart Steps to Creating a School Culture That Supports Adolescent Comprehension\". This was followed by a series of breakout sessions on best classroom practices. On August 8, 2002, Steven Weber held a 'workshop at Booker T. Washington Elementary on '.'Best- Practices in Social Studies'\\)t was presented to.the 4th grade teachers in thelittle Rock Sch6ol District, ihewbrkshop fpcus~d aroLlr}d tiiehve them~~ of-geograpt:Jy\\:1hdthe:s6cf~(studies (foorth'grade) framework/standards3 Several lntem:et web siles 'were shared with the ~tq_fo iullih~ graid~e sodic~1J~tt}1di1e~s .te~ttii::~e.ts a~nf!JintieIrn~t.~veI wtefbf si~te s: tfoir f:ou:rth\n: fJ:g~Jtu\n:f!s~c!~~i~i!v1~~l:1~1~~w!~iJ,rvice.workshop{\n,The 54 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. B. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SA T-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 55 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SA T-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 56 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SA T-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 57 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 58 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21 , 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 61 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for train ing seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 62 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997/1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 63 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 64 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 65 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m. , in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 66 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31 , 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. 67 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31 , 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach , and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. 68 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2002 (Continued) The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD}, balance literacy training (PCSSD}, alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Learning through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their annual summer conference in Hot Springs, June 5-7, 2000. Among the discussions were the formation of a chapter of the National Staff Development Council, the Pathwise Mentor program grant, Smart Start, and Smart Step. 69 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service tra\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1749","title":"District court, motion to extend time, plaintiff's response to Joshua's comments on plaintiff's proposed findings, motion for new trial or, motion for relief, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","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":["2002-09"],"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--21st century","Little Rock School District","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Joshua intervenors","Education--Arkansas","School integration","African Americans--Education","Teachers","Student activities","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["District court, motion to extend time, plaintiff's response to Joshua's comments on plaintiff's proposed findings, motion for new trial or, motion for relief, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"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/1749"],"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":["64 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\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\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, motion to extend time; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua's comments on plaintiff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for new trial or, in the alternative, motion for relief from judgment of order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create 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. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: RECEIVED SEP - 4 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. LRSD requests an additional forty-eight hours within which to respond to the Joshua Interventor's \"Comments of the Joshua Intervenors on the LRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\" which was filed on August 29, 2002, but which LRSD received by mail on August 30, 2002. 2. LRSD requests additional time because of the number of issues raised by Joshua including new issues which could have been included in Joshua's August 19, 2002 submission. Without objection, the Joshua Intervenors previously received an extension of time of three days to file their \"Comments.\" 3. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors has stated that he does not object to the extension of time requested by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests a forty-eight hour extension of the time within which they must file their response to Joshua's \"Comments of the Joshua Intervenors on the LRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\" to and including September 5 at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 B~~ ~----- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on September 3, 2002. Mr. John W. Walker Via Fax \u0026amp; mail JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 2 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P. 0. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 BChristopherHe~li IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT~t,{4,:,... EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Dts-,.4g; c!;;t, WESTERNDIVISION J,q S[\"p ~~ SY.. Mf:s ~ 4f. 0 3 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT lr,t,_.f~TIFF I:.._\u0026gt;/ZlE:frl( V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL 1- j,r,--;_ () z_ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL lJ (LV} ~/) KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ~ ;/.;~;fr~ Ur c MOTION TO EXTEND Til\\.1E For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: Df2p C1_E:f?,r DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. LRSD requests an additional forty-eight hours within which to respond to the Joshua Interventor's \"Comments of the Joshua Intervenors on the LRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\" which was filed on August 29, 2002, but which LRSD received by mail on August 30, 2002. 2. LRSD requests additional time because of the number of issues raised by Joshua including new issues which could have been included in Joshua's August 19, 2002 submission. Without objection, the Joshua Intervenors previously received an extension of time of three days to file their \"Comments.\" 3. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors has stated that he does not object to the extension of time requested by the LRSD. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD requests a forty-eight hour extension of the time within which they must file their response to Joshua's \"Comments of the Joshua Intervenors on the LRSD's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law\" to and including September 5 at 5:00 p.m. ,HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RU.LE 58 Ai\\JD/OR 79(a) FRC ON G O '2.- 6 7 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL I. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S COMMENTS ON PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OFF ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Good Faith and Monell. RECEIVED SEP - 6 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In assessing good faith, the LRSD believes that the Court should distinguish between the conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors (the \"Board\") and the conduct of individual employees, and the LRSD cited the Court to the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S . 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), which recognized this distinction for the purpose of establishing municipal liability under 42 U.S.C.  1983. Joshua argues that it is not appropriate to make this distinction because \"implementation falls to the day-to-day employees .. . . \" Joshua's Comments, p. 2. Joshua's argument is unpersuasive because the Revised Plan was an agreement between the Board and Joshua, and the issue is whether the Board substantially complied with the agreement. See Revised Plan  11. Revised Plan  2 contained the LRSD's core obligations. The statement of each specific obligation begins, \"The LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. \" See Revised Plan,  2. The Board decided the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented, and in certain instances by whom. For example, Revised Plan 2.6 provided, \"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- Americans in . . . extracurricular activities .. .. \" The Board met this obligation by implementing a policy assigning to school principals the responsibility for promoting participation and ensuring that there were no barriers to participation by qualified AfricanAmericans in extracurricular activities. See,~, CX 719, Policy JJIB-Rl (high schools) and R- 2 (middle schools) (\"When racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate.\"). Thus, the Revised Plan did not \"establish[] roles and responsibilities for LRSD representatives other than school board members .. . ,\" as Joshua contends. Rather, the Board assigned roles and responsibilities to its employees as a part of implementing the Revised Plan. See CX 719. The fact that the \"day-to-day\" implementation of the Revised Plan fell to the Board's employees does not distinguish Monell. That was the precise question that Monell addressed: when should an governmental entity, like the Board, be held liable under  1983 for the tortuous conduct of its employees. See Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 1298, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). Similarly, even if the Court finds violations of the Revised Plan,1 the Court must decide whether the Board should be held accountable for those violations. Monell provides the Court a ready framework for making that decision. Monell also cannot be distinguished because it deals with a finding ofliability, rather than implementation of a remedy. See Joshua's Comments, p. 2. The LRSD does not cite Monell for the purpose of establishing the governing legal standard. The common question in Monell and the present case is to what extent should a governmental entity be held accountable for the acts of its employees. Monell provides guidance in answering that question. Finally, to the extent Joshua contends that the Board guaranteed that no employee would commit an act of racial discrimination, the Revised Plan does not support that contention. The 1The LRSD does not concede that Joshua came forward with evidence to establish any violations of the Revised Plan. 2 Board agreed to \"in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis ofrace, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools.\" Revised Plan,  2.1. In an organization the size of the LRSD, there will be employees who make bad decisions, some in good faith and maybe some not in good faith. All the Board can do is adopt policies and take reasonable steps to ensure its employees comply with those policies. That is what the Board agreed to do under the Revised Plan, and the evidence clearly established that it lived up to that agreement. II. Castaneda Joshua's reliance on Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 499, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1282, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (I 977), is misplaced. 1n that case, the Supreme Court stated, \"Because of the many facets of human motivation, it would be unwise to presume as a matter of law that human beings ofone definable group will not discriminate against other members of their group.\" Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 499, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1282, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977). The LRSD has not asked the Court to make such a presumption. The evidence before this Court differs materially from the evidence before the Supreme court in Castaneda. That case concerned a challenge to the Texas system for selecting grand juries through the use of grand jury commissioners. The plaintiff used statistical evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination against Mexican-Americans. Id. at 496. This shifted the burden to the State of Texas \"to dispel the inference of intentional discrimination. Inexplicably, the State introduced practically no evidence.\" Id. at 497-98. The Supreme Court noted that the State failed to produce any evidence \"about the way in which the commissioners operated and their reasons for [selecting persons for the grand jury lists].\" Id. at 500. In the present case, Joshua failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination by the LRSD. While Joshua presented evidence showing a small number of African-Ameri'can 3 AP English teachers at Central High School, no evidence was presented of the \"degree of underrepresentation.\" Id. at 494. This required evidence comparing the proportion of AfricanAmerican English teachers who had the training required to teach AP courses2 and who requested to teach AP courses3 with the proportion of African-American AP teachers. Id. Joshua failed to present evidence establishing the proportion of African-American English teachers with the training required to teach AP courses, and no African-American English teacher at Central festified that his or her request to teach AP courses had been denied. Even Dr. Faucette admitted on cross-examination that he had never requested to teach AP, despite his direct testimony that he had been denied the opportunity to do so. See Tr. July 22, 2002, pp. 177 and 215-16. Moreover, even assuming that Joshua had come forward with the necessary proof and that the degree of underrepresentation was sufficient to create an inference of intentional discrimination, see id. at 495-96, the LRSD, unlike the State of Texas, provided a race-neutral explanation for the small number of African-American English AP teachers at Central: the labor agreement with - the District's teachers, which requires consideration of factors such as experience, education and seniority in making teaching assignments. See Tr. July 22, 2002, pp. 90 and 218-19. Finally, this Court need not presume that LRSD's African-American administrators would not engage in racial discrimination because the LRSD presented evidence to they would not. Dr. Lacey testified that the District's secondary principals would not accept or condone racial discrimination within their schools. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 803-05 . See also Tr. July 22, 2002, pp. 85-86 (racial discrimination not acceptable at J .A. Fair), pp. 122-123 (racial discrimination not acceptable at Hall); Tr. July 23, 2002, 522 (teachers treat black and white students the same at McClellan). Similarly, Sadie Mitchell testified that principals fulfilled their responsibility to identify and eliminate barriers to African-American participation in extra- 216 2Specialized training is required to teach AP courses. See Tr. July 23, 2002, p. 518. 3Teachers are asked each year to request teaching assignments. See Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 4 curricular activities. See Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 262. More generally, the Court heard evidence of the administration 's commitment to complying with the Revised Plan and to working in the best interest of all students. See, U, Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 189 and 191 (\"We talked a great deal about how to embed the plan in the work of the District, so it became the work of the District, and not something sitting over to the side that was layered on top of what people normally did.\") Therefore, this Court has a sufficient evidentiary foundation to conclude that LRSD's AfricanAmerican administrators would not discriminate against African-American students or teachers.4 See Coates v. Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, 1982 WL 285 *53 (N.D. Ill. 1982). Joshua next purports to provide the Court examples of \"objective\" violations of the Revised Plan not cured by the fact that the decision maker was African-American. Each of these alleged violations will be discussed in tum. First, Joshua asserts that the Revised Plan obligated the LRSD \"to ensure\" no racial discrimination in student discipline and this, in tum, obligated the LRSD to investigate the cause - of the racial disparity in student discipline. See Joshua's Comments, p. 3. Joshua then pulls out of context a single sentence from the testimony of Dr. Linda Watson to purportedly establish a violation of these obligations. 1n fact, the Revised Plan did not obligate the LRSD to investigate the racial disparity in student discipline. See LRSD's Proposed Findings, p. 56. The LRSD agreed to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" Revised Plan  2.5. In this instance, the procedure to be implemented was also agreed to by the parties. The LRSD was to \"strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner.\" Revised Plan  2.5 .1. This is 4Joshua makes much of the fact that Central's Principal Rudolph Howard was not called to testify at trial. The LRSD disagrees that Howard's testimony was necessary. The anecdotal evidence concerning Central falls far short of that necessary to establish institutional discrimination. See Wessmann v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790, 806 (1998). Moreover, Joshua's general objections and Judge Wright 's refusal to allow the LRSD to conduct meaningful discovery (See Tr. October 2, 2001 , Docket No. 3503) made it extremely difficult for the LRSD to anticipate Joshua's witnesses before the parties simultaneous submission of their witness lists. 5 what the LRSD did, and it provides context for Dr. Watson's testimony that, \"I can't say we were looking at it based on race. We were looking at the number of suspensions. We are trying to offer programs that African-American students, as well as any other students, [ could) participate in.\" Tr. Nov. 19, 2001 , p. 163.5 The LRSD never agreed to reduce or eliminate the racial disparity in student discipline, and Joshua's attempt to read such a requirement into the Revised Plan cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the agreement. Second, Joshua asserts that the Revised Plan \"promised affirmative action\" to increase African-American participation in extracurricular activities. See Joshua's Comments, p. 3. If Joshua contends that the Revised Plan required an \"affirmative action\" program with regard to extracurricular activities, the Revised Plan clearly contained no such requirement. Revised Plan  2.6 required the LRSD \"to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in ... extracurricular activities.\" The LRSD's obligation to promote - participation cannot reasonably be construed as an obligation to create an affirmative action program. To the extent Joshua means that the LRSD was to actively work to encourage participation and eliminate barriers, the LRSD did this. To establish the alleged violation of this obligation, Joshua argues Sadie Mitchell \"had the lead responsibility\" for implementation of this obligation, but that her approach was to \"wait for complaints.\" See Joshua's Comments, 3-4. The record does not support Joshua's premise. As discussed above, the Board assigned responsibility for monitoring this obligation to school principals. The LRSD's witnesses all agreed on this point. See,~' Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 136. Joshua concludes that Mitchell had \"lead responsibility\" because she supervised the Assistant Superintendent for School Services, 5 As Dr. Watson explained, the LRSD attempted to provide programs to help all students in need, not just African-American students. Nothing in the Revised Plan required the LRSD to provide these programs to only African-American students. To exclude non-African-American students because of their race would in fact violate the Revised Plan's requirement that there be \"no discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan 2.5 . 6 Dr. Lacey, who supervised secondary school principals.6 As to her actual responsibility, Mitchell testified: Q. You are aware. Let's just talk about the reality. You were aware -- you have not heard the testimony. But you are aware, for instance, quiz bowl and debate, Odyssey of the Mind, various activities were all white, were you not? A. Yes. Q. I see. Did you develop a plan for changing that? A. I did not develop a plan. The building principal did. Q. Well, in the three years that the plan was in operation before the report seeking release from unitary status, did you have any occasion to prepare any writing reflecting that was shared with the Joshua Intervenors or the public reflecting what actions you would take to change those patterns? A. I did not, because Joshua did not request a report through the formal compliance complaint. Q. You are not suggesting that you only prepared requests or reports at Joshua's request, are you? A. I only respond to complaints from patrons, community, Joshua, OD Ms, and anybody else, through fonnal complaints. Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 262 (emphasis supplied). Mitchell's testimony was entirely consistent with District policy. Secondary principals were responsible for resolving complaints about extracurricular activities. See, ~ ex 719, Policy JJIB-Rl (high schools) and R-2 (middle schools) (\"When racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate.\"). The Handbooks provided that students or parents not satisfied with the principal's resolution of their complaint could appeal to the Assistant Superintendent for School Services or the Associate Superintendent for School Services, and then to the Superintendent. See ex 670, p. 3. Nothing about this process violated the Revised Plan. 6Following this reasoning, the Superintendent had \"lead responsibility\" because he supervised Mitchell. 7 Moreover, the implicit assumption in Joshua's argument is that the Revised Plan required proportional representation of African-Americans in all extracurricular activities. The plain language of the Revised Plan invalidates this assumption. It called for encouraging participation and removing barriers to participation so activities would be open to all interested students. See Revised Plan,  2.6. Nothing required the LRSD to manufacture interest or establish quotas for the sake ofracial balance. Revised Plan 2.12.2 required the LRSD to develop remedies to racial disparities in activities \"where appropriate.\" Thus, the Revised Plan acknowledged that not all racial disparities in activities require a remedy. No remedy would be appropriate, for example, where the racial disparity results solely from individual student choices. In a related argument, Joshua contends that the Revised Plan required the District to investigate the racial disparity in the University Studies Program at Hall High School. This contention ignores the fact that Revised Plan  2.6 applies to \"qualified\" African-Americans. Joshua presented no evidence as to the proportion of qualified African-Americans at Hall from which it could be determined whether there was a racial disparity. Moreover, it is not true that \"there is no claim or evidence of an LRSD study of possible barriers . . . \" As quoted above, Mitchell testified that principals had this responsibility, and she believed they fulfilled that responsibility. See Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 262 Next, Joshua contends that the LRSD's use of activity accounts to address financial barriers violated Revised Plan  2.6. See Joshua's Comments, p. 4. The implicit assumption in this argument is that the LRSD agreed to eliminate every barrier to participation. That is not true. The LRSD agreed to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed ... to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . .. extracurricular activities.\" See Revised Plan  2.6 ( emphasis supplied) and Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 775. Joshua argues that the process developed by the LRSD for addressing financial barriers to participation was inadequate, but there is no factual basis for this argument. There was no 8 evidence that a single student was denied participation in an extracurricular activity due to a financial barrier. Later in its Comments, Joshua argues that a financial barrier caused a reduction in the African-American enrollment in the University Studies Program at Hall. Joshua's Comments, p. 8. While it is a fact that students must pay tuition to UALR to participate in the program, it is pure speculation to conclude that this caused the decline in African-American enrollment in the second year of the program. See Final Report, p. 46. There was no evidence that a single student was denied admission to the program because he or she was unable to pay the tuition. To Dr. Lacey's knowledge, only one student had sought financial assistance to participate in the program, and the District was able to solicit a private donation to pay the tuition for that student. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 802. See also Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 268 (Mitchell testified that she had used money from her budget to buy instruments for students in need). Finally, Joshua argues that the way in which Rudolph Howard assigned AP English - teachers at Central showed bad faith in violation of Revised Plan  2. I. As discussed above, the evidence presented by Joshua failed to create an inference of intentional racial discrimination under Castaneda. More importantly, the District implemented policies \"designed\" to address this potential barrier. Dr. Lesley testified that the District suggested principals involve more teachers in teaching Pre-AP and AP classes, rather than having one teacher teach all of the Pre-AP and AP sections. This would allow greater opportunity for African-American teachers to teach Pre-AP and AP courses. See Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 695 . Jim Mosby, Principal of Southwest Middle School, did as the District suggested and had all of his core subject teachers teach at least one Pre-AP course. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 571. The District also participated in the College Board's \"Teachers of Color\" program. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 671. These efforts demonstrate the District's recognition of this potential barrier and implementation of procedures and programs designed to address it. This was all the Revised Plan required. III. Substantial Compliance. 9 The issue before this Court is whether the LRSD \"substantially complied\" with its Revised Plan obligations. See Revised Plan  11. No evidence was presented as to what the parties meant by \"substantial compliance.\" However, the phrase \"substantial compliance\" has a recognized meaning in the context of termination of a consent decree and should be interpreted consistent with that meaning. See AMI Civil 4th 3014 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should interpret words or phrases associated with a particular trade or occupation as experienced and knowledgeable members of that trade or occupation use them, unless evidence discloses that the parties used them in a different sense.\"). The LRSD cited Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (8 th Cir. 1998) only for the purpose of establishing the recognized meaning of the phrase \"substantial compliance\" in this context. Cody actually addresses the generally applicable standard for termination of a consent decree. That standard does not apply in the present case because the Revised Plan included a standard for termination. See Revised Plan  11. If the Court decides not to rely on Cody to define substantial compliance, then Cody is irrelevant. Moreover, Joshua misinterprets Cody in arguing that it establishes a three-step inquiry. The court in Cody stated: [T]he district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald [v. Carnahan], 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8 th Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see Dowell, 498 U.S. at 24 7, 111 S.Ct. at 636-37. Id. at 1199-1200. The most logical reading of this paragraph is that violations of a consent decree \"constitute substantial noncompliance\" only when they \"cast doubt on the defendants' future compliance with the Constitution.\" Under Joshua's interpretation, a district court would be required to continue supervision of a school district based on substantial noncompliance, even though the district court had no concerns about the school district's future compliance with the Constitution. Such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the district court's \"duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities\" at the earliest practicable date. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490 (1992). N. The Agreement. The LRSD agrees that the issue before this Court is whether the LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan, and at this time at least, the LRSD does not seek to be declared unitary based on anything other than its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. The LRSD cited the Court to other unitary status cases to provide context for assessing the LRSD's compliance and the evidence presented by Joshua. As the discussion in Section IT, supra, illustrates, Joshua is trying to rewrite the parties' agreement and impose additional obligations on theLRSD. Revised Plan  2 required implementation of policies \"designed to ensure\" specific goals. Joshua 's arguments suggest that the LRSD guaranteed achievement of the goals. To avoid these goals being construed as obligations, the LRSD insisted that the following language be added to - the Revised Plan: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. As stated, the Revised Plan only required the LRSD to develop appropriate programs, policies and procedures. The LRSD worked hard to achieve its goals (e.g. Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 725-26; Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 188-89, 428), but it made no guarantees. This Court should reject Joshua's attempts to read such guarantees into the parties' agreement. V. Joshua's Failure to Challenge the LRSD's Compliance. Joshua is correct that Revised Plan  11 does not expressly require an issue to be raised pursuant to Revised Plan  8 before it may be the basis for denying the District unitary status. However, an implied term of the LRSD's agreement to pay Joshua in advance for monitoring 11 was that Joshua would bring compliance issues to the Board's attention in a timely manner.7 Current Board President Baker Kurrus testified that the Board agreed to pay Joshua in advance to facilitate \"a process whereby you on behalf of your clients were going to step forward and tell us what we were doing wrong.\" Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 763. Kurrus testified that the Board relied on Joshua to bring compliance issues to the Board's attention so they could be addressed and would not prevent the District from being declared unitary. Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 763. The Board's reliance was reasonable, and thus, principles of estoppel should bar Joshua from complaining about policies of which it was aware but never challenged during the term of the Revised Plan. See Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142, 1144-45 (61 h Cir. I 997)(recognizing a district court's jurisdiction to consider whether the equitable principle of estoppel has altered a party's obligations and duties under a consent decree). Joshua's failure to raise compliance issues is also relevant in interpreting the Revised Plan. Under traditional contract law principles, a party with knowledge that the other party's  - performance violates the parties' agreement must put the breaching party on notice or the nonbreaching party will be held to have waived the breach. See Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349, 355, 990 S.W.2d 581 , 585 (l 999)(\"It has also been held that a party with knowledge of a breach of contract by the other party waives the right to insist on a forfeiture when he allows the other party to continue in performance of the contract.\"); Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275,278,647 S.W.2d 492,493 (1983)(\"The rule is that a party to a contract who, with knowledge of a breach by the other party, continues to accept benefits under the contract and suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the breach.\"). For example, Joshua complains that the LRSD violated Revised Plan 2.7.1 by not preparing a formal program evaluation each year of every program designed to improve AfricanAmerican achievement. However, Joshua knew no later than August 11 , 1999, when ODM 7Counsel for Joshua bad no conflict of interest in making such an agreement. It would have been in the best interest of the class to have violations of the Revised Plan remedied as soon as possible. 12 issued its report on LRSD's implementation plans, that the LRSD did not intend to do so. Joshua's failure to put the LRSD on notice that it considered this a violation constitutes a waiver of this alleged violation. Also under traditional contract principles, Joshua's failure to assert many of the interpretations of the Revised Plan they now advance militates against the Court adopting Joshua's interpretation. The Court should give weight to the parties ' interpretation of the Revised Plan as evidence by their conduct during performance. See AMI Civil 4th 3015 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should give weight to the meaning placed on the language by the parties themselves, as shown by their statements, acts, or conduct after the contract was made.\"). Using the same example as above, Joshua's failure to object to the LRSD's interpretation of Revised Plan 2.7.1 during the plan 's term weighs in favor of the Court adopting the LRSD's interpretation as set forth in ODM's August 11 , 1999 report and the Interim Report. VI. Dr. Terrence Roberts Joshua contends that LRSD's discussion of Dr. Terrence Roberts' testimony ignored his \"ultimate views.\" Joshua 's Comments, p. 9. Joshua points to Dr. Roberts ' testimony wherein he seems to draw a distinction between the LRSD seeking unitary status and compliance with the Revised Plan: The concern was to be released from court supervision. And it seemed to be a matter of whatever it took to achieve that goal, and it didn't really have anything to do with the students or the Plan. Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 629. In fact, the only thing LRSD could do in order to be released from court supervision was to comply with the Revised Plan. Revised Plan,  11 . It would have been impossible for LRSD to pursue unitary status in a way that \"didn't really have anything to do with the students or the Plan.\" Joshua also reminds the Court of Dr. Roberts' testimony that the true beneficiaries of the LRSD's advanced placement curriculum are white students. Joshua 's Comments, p. 10; Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 630. This testimony does not advance Joshua 's case. Although there are presently F\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\des-unitary-response-Joshua-coJ1YllC\"llts.wpd 13 more white students than black students enrolled in advanced placement courses, LRSD has removed barriers to enrollment in those courses, significantly increased the enrollment of African-American students in advanced placement courses, and put in place a system of Pre-AP courses and other supports designed to insure continued increases in the enrollment of AfricanAmerican students in advanced placement courses. Tr. July 22, 2002, p. 86; Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 374-75; Tr. July 24, 2002, pp. 668-95 . Joshua misconstrues the LRSD's request for an orderly transition (Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, p. 63) as signaling that the LRSD \"plans changes in student assignment policies which would promote segregation of pupils.\" Joshua's Comments, p. 10. According to Joshua, \"this aspect of the LRSD submission clashes with repeated LRSD assertions that the District is committed to a future without legal violations .\" In fact, the LRSD's request for a transition period is designed to allow the LRSD to maintain its current policies while the District considers the legality of continuing those policies after it is declared unitary: Compare Gretter v. Bollinger, 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002) with Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996). If the LRSD were planning to change its student assignment policies, it would not seek court approval of a transition period. VII. Section 2.7-Achievement Although the issue before the court is whether the LRSD implemented \"programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students,\" Joshua argues that conditions which existed before implementation of the Revised Plan and which were drastically changed by the implementation of the Revised Plan 2.7 can somehow be considered as evidence that the LRSD failed to implement the Revised Plan. Joshua's Comments, pp. 14-15. Joshua contends that the achievement disparity between AfricanAmerican and white children exists partly because \"the LRSD admittedly taught its AfricanAmerican students, including in the massive Title I Program, in a manner causing harm to their achievement levels.\" Joshua's Comments, p. 14. Dr. Lesley flatly denied this accusation: F\\HOJ\\ff\\FENDLEY\\l.RSD 200 1\\des-unitary-response-Joshua-conmcnts.wpd 14 Q. [By Bob Pressman] Do you wish to deny that any part of the difference in the success rates on the two Benchmark Exams was due to black students having been less exposed in the Little Rock Schools to the content of the Benchmark Exams than white students? A. Yes, I will deny that. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't happen that we differentiate. Tr. August 1, 2001 , p. 697. Dr. Lesley testified that \"[t]he instruction for white children and black children is the same in the Little Rock School District, but school is not the only place where children learn.\" Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 696. The evidence clearly does not show that the academic achievement disparity which existed in LRSD before the implementation of the Revised Plan was the result ofLRSD failing to properly teach African-American students. Tr. August 1, 2001 , pp. 696-97. But the issue before the Court remains whether LRSD substantially complied with the requirements of Revised Plan 2.7. Dr. Lesley testified about the many things the LRSD did during the term of the Revised Plan which v.:ere \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.\" Tr. Nov. 19, 2001 , pp. 194-214; Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 713-26. Regarding the low Benchmark Exam scores for white children and African-American children in the LRSD, Dr. Lesley testified that \"those scores are why we changed the curriculum.\" Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 697. Joshua's argument that the LRSD somehow failed to teach its African-American students is further undercut by the fact that African-American students in the LRSD generally perform better on the Benchmark Exams than African-American students throughout the State and that poverty, rather than race, accounts for the low scores. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 420-22; Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 415-17, 441; CX 731. The evidence in this case also shows that the programs, policies and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students are working. CX 594; Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 405-10; Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 724-25. Regarding the tests LRSD uses to assess early literacy, Dr. Lesley testified: F'.\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\des-unitary-respomc::-Joshua-corrmcnts wpd 15 On every one of those measures, there are eight tests, on every one of those measures there was a considerable narrowing of the achievement gap between African-American and other students, and the gap was completely closed on two of them and almost on two others, by the end of grade two. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001 , pp. 409-410. The LRSD believes that it will continue to improve the achievement levels of its African-American students. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001 , p. 422 (\"[W]e have in place now almost everything we need to do to keep improving.\"); Tr. Nov. 20, 2001 , p. 428 (\"[T]here is a great deal going on that we think will keep the District moving forward and keep improving.\") Joshua has provided the Court no reason to believe otherwise. F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\des-uni1ary-rcsponsc-Joshua-corrmen1s wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRJDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY~- 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on September 5, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME.\\FENDLEY\\l.R.SD 200 1\\dc.s-uni1ary-response-Joshua-comments.wpd 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs.  4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP O 6 2002 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 2001-2002 school year and proposed budget for - the 2002-2003 school year. The MRC communicated both budgets to the Court in a letter dated July 31, 2002, attached to my August 19, 2002 Order (docket no. 3661). Without objection, I hereby approve both budgets as submitted. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2002. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wl--q-i ~Ulf; 58 AND/OR~ ON 5\"L 9/1 .11-- sy_\"7'\" ~--_.._--'---- U.f !fm~cRRT EASUAN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 1 2 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED SEP 1 3 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER ~~M~;.,. ' DEP. CL'. AK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 30, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike, asking this Court to strike from the record any evidence presented by Joshua concerning events which occurred after March 15, 2001 . On August 9, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Designation of Testimony to be Stricken. The Joshua Intervenors filed a Response to Plaintiffs Designation of Testimony to be Stricken on August 14, 2002. There are portions of the testimony that Joshua does not object to striking. Thus, the following testimony is excluded by agreement of the parties: PAGE LINES 45 5-25 46 1-12 60 24-25 61 1 63 16-25 64 1-21 71 20-25 6 7 4 72 1-18 91 15-25 110 14-25 197 12-25 394 24-25 395 1-10 425 3-24 453 20-25 454 1-25 455 1-25 456 1-25 457 1-25 460 6-25 461 1-11 461 18-25 462 1-25 498 1-3 501 19-24 527 4-11 The disputed portions of the testimony will be dealt with in categories according to similar subject matter. The following portions of testimony will remain because the specific time period referred to either cannot be ascertained from the testimony or is clearly prior to March 15, 2001: (1) page 45, lines 1-4; (2) page 53, lines 6-25; page 54, lines 1-25; page 55, lines 1-25; page 56, lines 1- 21 ; (3) page 56, lines 22-25; page 57, lines 1-25; page 58, lines 1-6; (4) page 58, lines 7-25; page -2- 59, lines 1-25 ; (5) page 60, lines 1-23; page 61, lines 2-20; (6) page 62, lines 1-25; page 63, lines 1-15; (7) page 65, lines 11-25; page 66, lines 1-25; (8) page 70, lines 17-25; page 71 , lines 1-14; (9) page 92, lines 1-14; (10) page 93, lines 1-23; (11) page 105, lines 10-11 ; (12) page 122, lines 13-16; (13) page 196, lines 12-25; page 197, lines 1-11 ; page 198, lines 8-25; page 199, lines 1- 16; (14) page 329, lines 20-25; page 330, lines 1-24; (15) page 338, lines 21-25; (16) page 348, lines 18-25; (17) page 350, lines 11-25; page 351 , lines 1-21 ; (18) page 381 , line 25; page 382, lines 1-23; (19) page 400, lines 15-25; page 401 , lines 1-25; page 402, lines 1-25; page.403, lines 1-25; page 404, lines 1-25; page 405, lines 1-25; page 406, lines 1-25; page 407, lines 1-25; page 408, lines 1-10; (20) page 408, lines 11-25; page 409, lines 1-25; page 410, lines 1-25; page 411 , lines 1-25; page 412, lines 1-25; page 413 , lines 1-25; page 414, lines 1-5; (21) page 414, lines 6- 25; page 415, lines 1-25; page 416, lines 10-13; (22) page 418, lines 15-25; page 419, lines 1-25; page 420, lines 1-25; page 421 , lines 1-25; page 422, lines 1-25; page 423 , lines 1-25; page 424, lines 1-25; page 425, lines 1-2, line 25; page 428, lines 12-25; page 429, lines 1-17; (23) page 434, lines 9-25; page 435, lines 1-9; (24) page 436, lines 10-25; page 437, lines 1-2; (25) page 439, lines 1-5; (26) page 458, lines 1-25; page 459, lines 1-25; page 460, lines 1-5; and (27) page 497, lines 21-25; page 499, lines 1-16. The following testimony is excluded from the record, and the reasoning for its exclusion is set forth following the description of the specific testimony: (1) The testimony at page 71 , lines 15-19, is stricken. That testimony refers to an evaluation conducted at the end of the 2000-2001 school year, which is necessarily after March 15, 2001. ,., -.)- (2) The testimony at page 122, lines 11-12 and lines 17-19, is stricken. The questions and answer found there concern the year 2002. (3) The testimony at page 198, lines 1-7, is stricken. It is a continuation of the testimony at page 197, lines 12-25, which the parties agreed should be excluded because it refers to the 2001-2002 school year. (4) The following testimony is excluded: page 340, lines 18-25; page 341 , lines 1-25; page 342, lines 1-25; page 343, lines 1-25; page 344, lines 1-25; page 345, lines 1-25; page 346, lines 1-25; page 347, lines 1-25; page 348, lines 1-17; page 349, lines 1-25; and page 350, lines 1-10. As set forth at page 329, lines 14-16, Justin Mercer graduated in 2002, making 2001-02 his senior year. English IV AP, the class Mr. Mercer took from Mrs. Brooks, is a senior class. Because Mr. Mercer's experiences in that class occurred during the 2001-02 school year, they were subsequent to March 15, 2001, and are stricken. (5) The testimony at page 379, lines 10-25; page 380, lines 1-25; page 381 , lines 1-24; page 382, lines 24-25; and page 383, lines 1-5, is cross-examination regarding Mr. Mercer's experience with Mrs. Brooks during the 2001-02 school year. See paragraph 4 above. It is stricken. (6) The testimony at page 395, lines 11-25, and page 396, lines 1-9, is redirect examination regarding the experiences of Mr. Mercer with Mrs. Brooks. See paragraphs 4 and 5 above. The testimony refers to evidence generated after March 15, 2001 , and is stricken. (7) The testimony at page 398, lines 8-25, and page 399, lines 1-9, involves Mr. Mercer's experiences with Mrs. Brooks during his senior year. See paragraphs 4-6 above. That testimony is stricken. -4- IT IS SO ORDERED this I :Z,~ay of September, 2002. -5- Wmwt!JJl:a UNITED ST A TES DISTRJCT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ':'.~J!T?t2~~~~~ _P..!:.CEIVED SEP 2 7 2002 '  A OFFICEOF ~ ESEGREGATIOH MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURI EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION     ., 1 .  -  - , . :3, .a-: . . ,-. - - ,-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL ;DISTRICT NO.1, ET AL 1v1R.S. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR IN THE ALTERNATNE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court pursuant to Rule 59( e) to alter or amend the judgment entered herein on September 13, 2002 or in the alternative to provide relief pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the Judgment or Order herein. Robert Pressman, ass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Jqhn W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 J9HN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I hereby certi~ that a copy of the foregoi~g t~,~n sent lfif~d U.S . Mail, postage prepaid to the followmg counsel of record, on this ,;\u0026lt;_J oay of ~ , 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ~- ,, V Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1--'Ir. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-34 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 8 8 John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 September 23, 2002 C : .S-le:,ll!, FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP 2 4 2002 JAMES W. McCOR/vi,\\Ci( Cl.ERK By: ________ Ol!P\u0026lt;roll!NBEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. LR-C- 82-866 Dear Judge Wilson: SEP 2 4 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONliORIMG Today we filed a motion for reconsideration. We found several errors in it and wish to correct them. We are hand delivering a substituted Motion for Reconsideration to the Court. The substitute motion does not alter or modify the substance of the motion filed today. It has been hand delivered to Judge Ray, the Little Rock School District counsel, the ODM and other counsel. JWW:js Enclosure- Motion for Reconsideration cc: United States District Court Clerk All Counsel of Record ( ,ere~; / ~~t \\/John W. Walker RECEIVED SEP 2 4 2002 - OFACEOF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 2 4 2002 DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DMSION JAMES W. McCOR'\" ACK By: ''\"''\"' , CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider the following findings of fact and conclusions oflaw which it has reached. In making this request, Joshua has been time limited because of the exceeding length of the Court's Opinion and the fact that the Court has sought to address issues that were not the subject of the evidentiary presentation for which the Joshua Intervenors had the burden of proof Joshua notes that the subject of the hearings, as determined by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, then presiding Judge of this case, was for Joshua to present the areas ofits greatest strength from among the various objections which Joshua had made to the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. The Court did not indicate that she would allow Joshua to present evidence on matters other than those which were the subject of the hearing before the Court. We make this notation because the successor Court Judge, the Honorable William R. Wilson, has faulted Joshua for not presenting evidence beyond the issues -on which evidence was taken. Joshua also notes that there was no issue that Joshua assumed the 1 burden of proof upon with respect to Joshua's obligations and undertaking with respect to compliance. Joshua had no power to impose any particular compliance upon the school district. Furthermore, Judge Wright made it clear that the agreement between the State of Arkansas with respect to the loan forgiveness of the $20 million dollars which was loaned by the Arkansas Department of Education to the Little Rock School District was not to be the subject of these hearings. Her reasoning was that the matter was premature because all the parties to that agreement were not before the Court, Joshua had not signed off upon it and that it had nothing to do with whether or not Little Rock had substantially complied with meeting the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which the parties agreed upon in January of 1998. The Court has also addressed the issue of the involvement of the ODM with respect to the issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson. The competence of the ODM, quality of the ODM reports, the budget of the ODM and the relationship between ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, were not before the Court in evidentiary form. Those matters had nothing to do with Joshua's burden of proof in demonstrating that the LRSD had not substantially complied with the obligation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Nor was the issue of overall counsel fees with respect to the duration of the litigation and the payments to lawyers, and the public perception of those fees a matter of evidence to be: . considered when Judge Wright formulated the issues. The issue of attorney's fees has no relevance to the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations. The Court, Judge Wilson, has recited histo,y regarding his perception of the fee event and made assumptions regarding those matters. In due respect to the Court, the assumptions are not valid and represent a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the 2 role of lawyers in this long standing case. The Joshua Intervenors were not informed at the time that this matter was reassigned to the Honorable William R. Wilson of the Court's negative attitude toward lawyers who were involved with and associated with this case. While Judge Wright may have had such attitudes, they were not expressed and do not form the basis for any judicial ruling. The attitude of the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods was well known. He disapproved of certain payments to certain counsel, i.e., counsel for Joshua and the legion of ,  I predecessor and associate counsel who were involved in this case when it was first filed as Aaron v. Cooper in 1956. The parties are entitled, we submit, to have facts found upon the record which means a record which is developed in open Court. The fee issue is particularly sensitive because the Court has proceeded to make assumptions regarding fees and costs. In doing so, the principal erroneous finding is that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time. Joshua requests that the Court either delete its references to payments to counsel or afford the issue to be revisited in a manner which establishes the fact .and does not further cloud public perception, a point to which the Court appears most sensitive. The Court also seems to disregard the role of Joshua because the Court makes no reference.to how Joshua became involved in this case in the first place and why it was necessary for the school district to seek an interdistrict remedy in the first place. Those matters were not before the Court and we submit should be excised from the Court's Opinion. It is important to note that the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods refused to allow the Joshua Intervenors to intervene in the first place. It was His ruling that the Black plaintiffs did not need their own advocate or representative because the Court would protect the interests of the Black children. That position was overturned by the Court of Appeals and from that point on, Joshua has been the real plaintiff seeking to validate and protect the Constitutional rights of African American children which the LRSD set out to accomplish through counsel who have since been discharged.1 With those points in the foreground and in context, Joshua respectfully asks the Court to reconsider its lengthy Memorandum Opinion of September 13, 2002 with respect to issues which were not before the Court or for which the Court may have made mistakes. 1. On page 2, the Court indicates that the Settlement Agreements of 1989 were to be implemented \"under the supervision of ... the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.\" We believe the terminology to be inappropriate because Judge Wright never entered an Order determining the ODM to be the supervisor of any district. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the ODM ever - performed in that role. 2. As stated preliminarily, Judge Wright required Joshua to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their strongest grounds for challenging the school district's request for release from Court supervision . The Cou1i did not afford LRSD the opportunity to establish its case because the burden of proof rested with the Joshua Intervenors. Accordingly, Joshua requests that any facts that were found beyond the submitted grounds identified as subject areas for evidentiary hearings should be excised. In this respect, there was no burden imposed upon Joshua to demonstrate its own actions or conduct and no party requested that Joshua make such a demonstration. Moreover, the Agreement did not call for such a demonstration. 1The record will reflect that the District hired Philip Kaplan, P.A. Hollingsworth, Janet Pulliam and their associates to pursue the interdistrict litigation which resulted in the 1989 Settlement Agreement but which Settlement Agreement was reached without those counsel. 4 3. The Court notes on page 7 the role of Judge Wright with respect to Her supervision of this overall case. The Court omits, however, reference to the fact that the LRSD filed a motion seeking to have Judge Wright recused from the case. Although she refused to recuse, her withdrawal made the recusal issues moot for purposes of appeal. The Court appears to have adopted LRSD's reasoning set fo11h in its motion for recusal when it addresses the role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe that is inappropriate, with all deference to the Court, and we believe that it tends to denigrate the significance of Judge Wright's work in seeking to implement through use of the ODM the dictates of the 811 ' Circuit. 4. When the ground rules were set by Judge Wright, she indicated that the Joshua Intervenors should present \"noncumulative\" evidence regarding the areas which Joshua most strongly regarded from the among the many areas to which it objected. Page 7, footnote 12. By ruling that cumulative evidence would be disallowed, the Court narrowed the hearing time and the presentation of evidence. The focus of the Court was upon brevity and substance. The successor Court agreed to follow the procedure set forth by Judge Wright. 5. In footnote 15, page 9, the Court notes that this action was filed on November 30, 1982, but it later gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since that time. Joshua r,equests that the Court, if it must address the history at all again, acknowledge that Joshua did not participate before the Honorable Henry Woods in the liability phase of the case as it is now styled and it only intervened at the remedy stage in 1987. Although this matter is not the subject of the evidentiary hearings, the Court may make this correction by reference to the docket entries and by reference to the Court of Appeal's Decision which allowed Joshua to intervene for purposes of remedy. Joshua fw1her notes that the 1989 Settlement Agreement 5 effectively merged the captioned case with, inter ctlia, Clark v. The Board o(Education of the Little Rock School District. Clark was the continuation of Aaron v. Cooper. Accordingly, this is a 46 year old case rather than a 20 year old case because the liability rulings of Clark remained and because, despite the beliefs of the late Judge Bill Ove1ton, there was never a determination that the LRSD had achieved unitary status. 6. In footnote 30, page 16, the Comi indicates that the claims for relief and remedies differed from those being sought in Clark. Joshua requests that the Court clarify those differences for as Joshua reads Judge Woods' later Opinion, Judge Woods, himself, found the school districts to be faulted for both interdistrict and intradistrict violations of the rights of African American children and he determined that consolidation with a resulting desegregation plan for the consolidated district would be necessary. Judge Woods' appointment of Special Master Aubrey - McCutcheon is not mentioned. Mr. IVlcCutcheon made findings during the remedial process that the districts were continuing to implement their policies by engaging in practices which tended to discriminate against African American school children. We believe that if history is to be written it cannot be fair unless the myriad hearings and other developments before Mr. McCutcheon are placed into perspective. Mr. McCutcheon is a necessary connection to legacy of Judge Henry Woods who the C0urt acknowledges to be the Court's mentor. 7. In footnote 47, pages 26 and 27, the Court makes reference to the evolution of the ODM and its budget. That matter was not before the Court. While Judge Wright's approval of the ODM budget is a matter of public record, we believe the Court may wish to excise these figures because they are inaccurate. Joshua is aware that the ODM budget was never fully spent. Joshua submits that the Court may wish to readdress this issue also because Judge Wright 6 approved the budgets and the manner in which Your Honor treats the budget seems to be at least an implicit criticism of Judge Wright's actions and of the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place. We submit that the ODM and its budget are not fair issues for the instant proceedings and that the Court's attitude regarding the merits of plaintiff's objections may be clouded by the belief expressed that too much money has been spent on the \"professional group.\" In making the request for the reconsideration on this point, we note that all  . ' ' of the governmental parties have resisted in one form or another the ODM activities. We also note that the Court may be signaling that it wants to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the 81 h Circuit There is no evidentiary basis for doing that or for allowing that inference to publicly flow On many occasions, Judge Wright commended the ODM work as being useful, helpful and even impo1iant in helping the districts achieve desegregation - goals. 8. On page 38, the Court notes that on December 27, 1996, Judge Wright held that LRSD would benefit from a \"temporary hiatus\" from monitoring. We have searched the record and do not find that she ever lifted that Order. Accordingly, LRSD has not been monitored as contemplated since 1997. Instead, it has been in advisory position to the LRSD. The Court has to also note with reference to the budget of ODM which it set forth on page 27 that monitoring for LRSD when done by the ODM, a 35% cost for LRSD, would have been approximately $250,000 per year. There surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was to take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year, a point the Court refers to at least five times. (Pages 39, 42, 43, 88 and 90). 9. On page 3 8, the Court heads a discussion \"the perplexing final resolution of Joshua's 7 request for still more attorney's fees from LRSD.\" Joshua requests the Court excise this section for several reasons. First, it indicates a bias or hostility toward Joshua counsel. Second, it implies collusion between the lawyers. Third, it suggests that the terms of the Settlement were not made known to Judge Wright, a conclusion not supported by any evidence. Fourth, it complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties. The Court criticizes an Agreement without evidence about, or without inquiring into, it. The implication that LRSD and Joshua entered into an attorney client relationship suggests professional misconduct on the part of the attorneys. Finally, there is nothing to indicate that for the monthly amount of $4,000+ Joshua's counsel agreed to undertake all the monitoring aspects, including the ODM's role, of LRSD's implementation of the plan. The Court takes issue with Joshua counsel's approved 1997 hourly rate of $250. Nonetheless, counsel has been awarded even greater fees than that as was - His Honor awarded greater fees while in private practice. Surely, the Court understood that Joshua did more than 16 hours per month in monitoring this case. There is no record to establish this fact, however, and if it is important for public perception or otherwise, Joshua is prepared to demonstrate the hundreds of meetings held with school district officials during the three year period; numerous meetings with the ODM; public confrontations during monitoring occasions where Joshua counsel were threatened with arrest and where because of the persistence and vigor ofJoshua' s monitoring, the district revised its policies. We, therefore, believe that it is important for the Court to address the issue by hearing, affording appropriate and reasonable time for developing the issues, or, that the matter be removed from the Court's Opinion because it is based only upon speculation and conjecture. Joshua notes here that the process requires lawyers. For instance, Steve Jones, representing the NLRSD and Sam Jones representing the PCSSD basically 8 sat in Court throughout these proceedings and were paid fees and costs while Joshua counsel have not been paid a dime. But the process affords the districts the right of counsel and the districts have had no reluctance in paying their counsel on a contemporaneous basis and they are not held to public or Court contempt for being paid. In page footnote 58, the Court \"guesses\" that all attorneys have been paid at least $8 _million dollars. A \"guess\" is inappropriate for a Court, we submit, when the facts are more easily I ascertainable and the facts establish that the payment for Joshua in 1990 represented payments for 34 years of work and costs during that time. There is no estimate for the amounts which the districts paid their counsel to forestall desegregation before 1990. On the other hand, this issue has already been addressed and we submit has no place in this Opinion because it does not contribute to the issues which the Court heard. Undersigned counsel Walker does not accept the - Court's conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case. On the other hand, the three districts have received almost one billion dollars from the State of Arkansas since 1990 because of the various actions undertaken by counsel. Careful inquiry by the Court would disclose that the annual desegregation amounts from the State to the three school districts is in the range of $50 million or more per year. Were this a contingent fee case, plaintiffs' counsel would have indeed benefitted. l 0. The Court makes reference on page 46 to the achievement disparity goals approved by the Court of Appeals as being unreachable citing the testimony ofDrs. Walburg and Armor which was given in 1996. That testimony came after the original Settlement Agreement in 1989 and then preceded the 1998 Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, whatever views Walburg, Armor and even Judge Wright had about the elimination of the achievement gap, the parties 9 agreed to address it in the manner set forth in the Plan. The Court's comments regarding _ Walburg and Armor are inapposite to the hearing which the Court held and should play no part in the Court's ruling. 11. On pages 4 7 and 48, the Court refers to the failure of objection by the ODM and Joshua to the Interim Compliance Report. There is no record basis for this, i.e. , no witness Jestified to this effect and there is no evidence that Joshua was silent at any time. The only evidence is that Joshua was continually involved and seeking to be involved in the devisation of policies and procedures and was continually meeting with district officials regarding compliance issues. See Court Exhibits 553 through 569. 12. On page 48, the Court chastises ODM for its report of disciplinary sanctions which was filed on June 14, 2000. The repo11 was made to Judge Wright before she relinquished her jurisdiction and before the March 15 report seeking release from Court supervision was filed by LRSD. She was aware and there are many cites in the record to reflect that ODM presented its report in such a way as to inform the district of the facts it found and to make recommendations regarding those facts within the context of discussions which followed subsequent to the submissions of the reports. Had Judge Wright found criticism with the ODM reports, we believe the Court was obliged to share those criticisms with the parties prior to LRSD having fil~d its report seeking relief from Court supervision. See pages 48 through 50. On page 49, the Court acknowledges that the March 15 report of the school district failed to adequately address the disproportionality of African American student discipline. The report is not evidence, as Mr: Chris Heller acknowledged. This failure by itself demonstrates that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection or release at the time the report was made. If the data were not available and were not presented there would be no basis for an objection from Joshua regarding the matter. ODM should not be faulted, nor should Joshua, for failing to object to data which did not exist at the time. 13. On pages 52 through 54, the Court notes that Joshua did not present evidence or arguments that LRSD \"was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty _and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing.\" The Court had previously instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence. The Court now states that Joshua's failure to present any of that evidence \"requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments.\" Joshua finds it incongruent for them not to be allowed \"to present any evidence on certain matters and upon compliance with a no evidence presentation then receive a finding that they abandoned their position. Surely, the Court will not hold it against Joshua when it did not present evidence that the Court refused to let in in the first place. 14. On page 58, the Court appears to chastise Joshua counsel for never raising a compliance issue under Section 8.2 of the Plan. The Plan did not require Joshua to raise the specific compliance issue in order for them to oppose release from Court supervision. Furthermore, as pointed out above, there was no place in this hearing on the issues as formulated for this issue to be addressed. Furthermore, there is much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators. See Court Exhibits 553-569. 15 . The Court interprets footnote 2 of the Revised Plan (Opinion page 60) as \"not\" being the intention of the parties to have the remediation goal fully achieved within three years. 11 Joshua's evidence did not say that it did. For Joshua's evidence was that certain goals were to have been fully met while others would be ongoing. Surely, the goal of remediation of achievement disparities would be ongoing but elimination of disparities in discipline need not be, for example . . The Court makes an assumption regarding the reason for this footnote. There is no basis for the assumption from the record. 16. In footnote 67, page 60, the Court seems to be uncomfortable with the practical~ty of I the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities. Judge Wright also had some discomfort with that goal as previously noted but the achievement goals were agreed to and, contrary to the opinion of the Court, they must be implemented. The question is not whether they should have been agreed to by the LRSD, for they were, but whether they must deliver on those goals or promises. There is a presumption that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts. Twel ve years after the money began to flow and between one half billion and a billion doll ars more spent in this district than which otherwise would have been spent, the achievement disparities remain. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the substantial monies expended were not used for the purpose of remediating achievement disparities between African American and white students. The beneficiaries of the monies have primarily been white students who have seen their achievement rise in ways to cause the gap to remain if not increase between and their still less fortunate brethren. 17. Beginning on_page 63 , the Court makes an analysis regarding the \"Green factors .\" We submit that the Green factors do not apply to this Settlement Agreement and that those factors should be excised. The Court takes the position that LRSD went beyond what it was required to do and \"voluntarily\" assumed desegregation obligations. We submit that these were 12 not voluntarily entered into, they were the result of negotiation brought about by the strength of the Joshua litigation position. They constitute benefits to the class of minority children which were bargained for by their counsel. The district was not doing the children a favor; rather, it was meeting an obligation which has been unaddressed during the 46 years of this litigation. 18. On page 72, the CoUii emphasizes that LRSD has never been adjudicated to be a _\"constitutional violator.\" We ask that the Court reconsider that position if for no other reason than that the settlement did not address fault. The Court discusses Judge Overton's Opinion and makes reference to the appellate's decision affirming Judge Overton at 705 F.2d 265 . The Court of Appeals approved Judge Ovetion 's Decision because the Plan before the Court represented the school board's attempt to temporarily reorganize attendance patterns while the school board pursued longer ranged plans to ensure an integrated school system citing this case. In other words, had this case not been filed , the Court of Appeal's Decision arguably would have been otherwise. On page 74, the Court noted that LRSD operated under the 1990 Settlement Plan for 8 years,\" a long time.\" The Court fails to note that during that \"long time\" Judge Wright found considerable disenchantment with the manner of operation and even required the school board members to come to Court to hear the evidence on many occasions. The Court even found the school district to be in contempt during this time. The Court disregards that history and seeks to demonstrate that LRSD has been a model of compliance during the Judge Wright years. That simply is not the case. This Court recognized as much on pages 30-32 of its own Opinion. The Court is requested to explain on the one hand the findings of Judge Wright and on the other hand its compliments of the district for these 8 years. 19. On pages 77 through 8 5, the Court appears to take issue with the concept that LRSD 13 .e specifically agreed to narrow the achievement gap between African American and other students. This lead the Court to impose an obligation upon Joshua to demonstrate that minority student achievement was a vestige of de jure desegregation. The Court thus imposed a liability concept upon Joshua during the hearing without any notice and without any cause. The Settlement Agreement is a remedy and as such may address issues other than those for which there has been a specific violation. But when the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court it becomes the law of the case and the parties do not have to readdress at each hearing the underlying basis for the remedy being provided. 20. On page 87, the Court makes a finding of fact (No. 3) that Joshua did not pursue the compliance issues by use of the correct procedures before objecting to the report as a whole. As stated before, Joshua was not obliged under the plan to do so. 21. In addressing the fii1dings of fact pages 87 through 160, the Court appears to have adopted the LRSD's proposed findings. While the Court has great discretion, we make the following notations inter alia: a) on page 87, the Court speculates regarding resolution between Joshua and the school districts; b) the Court speculates that Dr. Lacey would take appropriate action if she perceived any race based treatment despite the absence of any record of her past actions on this issue, page 93; c) on page 94, the Cou11 found that since 1989, LRSD had a good record of acting in good faith (see paragraph 18 supra); d) on page 96, the Court accepted the \"belief' by Dr. Linda Watson that both Joshua 14 and ODM were provided with copies of a compliance plan and did not require any evidence; e) on page 96, the Coui1 without any record basis, concluded that Joshua counsel and staff have free access to LRSD's offices and schools and routinely received copies of any requested documents; f) on page 100, the Court excuses the district 's failure in excluding Joshua from planning and other meetings that the district had regarding compliance; g) on pages 103 through I 07, the Court does not address the elimination of disparities as being intended by the Plan; rather, the Court addresses overall reduction in suspensions where the racial disparities remain; h) on page 106, the advisory ODM Report is criticized by His Honor with respect to discipline but Judge Wright did not make the same criticism. Had she done so, a duty to address the issue would have been created; i) on page 109 a \"suspension index\" was created without any explanation (see finding 30), i.e. no witness explained it. The Court accepted the calculation by LRSD that there was no diminishing of disparity in discipline between 1997 and 200.0; j) the Court on page 110 imposed upon Joshua a burden to prove that disproportionality in discipline was a result ofracial discrimination. Joshua submits that that is the wrong legal standard to be applied under the law of this case. The issue is relie( not causation; k) on page 111, the Court disregarded the incidents of discrimination presented in 15 discipline. (See footnote 108) In doing so, the Court disregarded the admonition by Judge Wright not to present cumulative evidence regarding any matter and then held that the presented incidents were too \"isolated\" to allow judgment regarding the entire school system; I) on page 112, the Court may wish to reconsider the word \"probable\" in finding 38 in discussing the testimony of Dr. Watson. A review of her testimony establishes that \"environmental factors may be\" - not \"probably were\" the explanation for racial disproportionality; m) on page 113, the Cowi notes that Dr. Watson indicates that African American teachers suspended African American students more than white teachers. That appears to be a finding of racial treatment by African American teachers toward African American students. This establishes continuation of systematic discrimination toward African American students as well as perpetuation of disparities; n) on page 115, at footnotes l I l-112, the Court seems to condone disparities in sports activities by noting on page 116 that students tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing. That in itself we submit is racial)' .e., . whites-golf, tennis, soccer; blacks - football, basketball and track; o) on pages 116-117, in addressing the testimony of Ray Gillespie, the Court does not address the inferences to be taken when white coaches publicly mistreat Black athletes nor the reasonable perceptions which are influenced by those actions; p) on page 118, the Court in finding 9, accepts a \"means\" test for participation in 16 extra-curricular activities but this flies in face of the reality that most African American children in the .LRSD - in contrast to its white students- cannot meet the \"means\" tests imposed; q) with respect to advanced placement courses, the district has increased the enrollment of white students to a point to where the preexisting disparity has been extended. The programs undertaken by the district which are cited by the Co1;1rt r) ' are minuscule. For example (SMART involved a summer number of 200 pupils and Teachers of Color could only involve six teachers per year in being prepared for AP. This program was sta11ed in January, 2001, less than two months before the R;eport herein); the Court disregarded the testimony of Jason Mercer who presented multiple incidents of unfair treatment at \"famed\" Little Rock Central High Scho?l and the Court entirely disregarded the testimony regarding of parent Romona Horton's travails regarding her precocious children who were also enrolled at Little Rock Central High School; s) the Court accepts a \"means\" test for participation in the University Studies Program despite the obvious conclusion that it will disqualify the great preponderance (90%) of African American students who attend Hall High School. The Court also concluded that in one instance, LRSD solicited a private donation to pay tuition for an African American student to take a course offered under the University Studies Program. The testimony does not identify that the race of that student. The Court is requested to correct this finding; 17 t) with respe.ct to counseling services, finding no. 24, page 133, the Court may wish to revisit this finding because it seems at odds with Ms. Watson's testimony; u) with respect to academic achievement, the Court notes the obligation of the LRSD to be to approve the academic achievement of African American students. The issue is not simply to improve the achievement of African American students, rather, it is to bring their achievement levels to a range within reasonably proximity of the achievement levels of white and other students; v) with respect to page 146, finding no. 16, there is no evidence of what Joshua counsel \"knew.\" Indeed, the 8th Circuit said that the parties should not retreat from the concept of eliminating the achievement gap; and w) on page 114, finding 18, the Court again speculates regarding the loan provision forgiveness by the State of Arkansas toward LRSD. The Court then goes ahead and gives L.RSD two more years in order to comply with the State agreement without there being joinder o( or a hearing upon the issue. The Court faults Joshua for not raising that issue but fails to acknowledge that when it was raised by Joshua, Judge Wright chose not to address it for the reasons set forth on pages 1 and 2, supra. This finding was not made upon any evidence regarding 'the Joshua objections to LRSD's Motion for Release from Court Supervision. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that there are compelling reasons for the Court to revisit the record in order to determine whether the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are supported by the evidence presented during the hearings before Judge Wright and His 18 Honor. We also note that it is appropriate for the Court to again consider the context of the evidentiary presentations and withdraw its conclusions regarding those areas of compliance that the Court did not allow evidence to be developed regarding. t~ u.,;,~f1 .2-9-\u0026lt;k~,aa ~ ,,., l ; ~11,i/I Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No .. 4(6,5 00 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, J~\"'Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 J W. WALKER, P.A. l 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been se~-Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this \"!};z_ day of . , 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Dennis R. Hansen ERIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Ms: Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; IBNNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 173 88 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED SEP 3 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF . v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Courts Order of December l 0. 199.3. the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADEs l'rojcct Manugcrncnt Tool for September 2002. Respectfully Submitted. MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. I IANSEN. # 97225 Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock. Arkansas 7220 I (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of' Ed ucation CERTIFICATE OF SERVlCE L Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on September 27. 2002. I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail. postage prepaid. addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, 1II Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol , Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock. AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher 1-leller Friday. Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol. Suite 2000 Little Rock. AR 72201 -3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jcmc'.) .lack. I ,yon \u0026amp; .Jones 425 W. Cnpilol , Suite 3-t00 Little Rock. /\\ R 7220 I Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol , Suite 1895 Little Rock. AR 7220 I Dennis R. Hansen    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\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\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_323","title":"Compliance court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-08/2002-09"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/323"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW/JRT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL JUL 5\" - 2002 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL desegregation monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 0 2 2002 JAMEa w By: z* PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ORDER The parties appeared before the Court by telephone in the absence of a court reporter on August 1, 2002 at 11:15 a.m. at which time the Court considered, upon the Joshua Intervenors request, concerns they had with respect to Plaintiff LRSDs Motion to Strike. After hearing the position of the parties counsel regarding the matter, the Court determined that the Plaintiff would have unitl August 9,2002 in which to designate the specific testimony in the record which it wishes to have stricken, and that the Joshua Intervenors would have until Wednesday, August 14, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. in which to respond thereto IT IS SO ORDERED thi: day of ,2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WIT 68 AND/OR 7' ON. RCP 6 2 RECEIVFO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ^UG 1 9 2*502 OFFICE OF OeSGQRSGATlOH UOjiiTDiyiMI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL received MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby designates the following testimony to be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in the LRSDs Motion to Strike and accompanying brief: WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 45 1-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). C. Norman 46 1-12 Same as above. C. Norman 53 6-25 Complaints about Pickering occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 54 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 55 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 56 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 57 1-25 Same as above C. Norman 58 1-25 C. Norman 59 1-25 Complaints about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Norman, p. 71-72). Complaints about Pickering and about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year.WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 60 1-25 C. Norman 61 1-20 Complaints about Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Avis and D.J. Thames). Same as above. C. Norman 62 1-25 C. Norman 63 1-25 C. Norman 64 1-21 C. Norman 65 11-25 C. Norman 66 1-25 BCCs support of Ross and Klais occurrred during the 2001-02 school year. BCC action against Norman and disciplinary action against Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year. Rutherford disciplinary action occurred during 2001-02 school year. Teacher refusal to give recommendation occurred during 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Chris Payne). Same as above. C. Norman 70 17-25 C. Norman 71 1-25 BCC action against Mr. Norman occurred during the 2001-02 school year. Same as above. C. Norman 72 1-18 C. Norman 91 15-25 C. Norman 92 1-14 C. Norman 92 8-23 C. Norman 93 1-14 P. Watson 105 10-11 P. Watson no 14-25 P. Watson 122 11-19 M. Faucette 196 12-25 Same as above. Cross concerning Rutherford.' Cross concerning BCC.^ Redirect concerning Rutherford. Concerns Chris Payne and 2001-02 school year. Concerns 2001-02 school year. Concerns 2002-03 school year. Concerns 2001-02 school year (see p. 105) Concerns 2001-02 school year (see p. 197, line 13) ^Plaintiffs designation of cross-examination testimony is contingent upon the direct examination being stricken. If the designated direct testimony is not stricken, Plaintiff does not want the cross-examination testimony stricken. ^See Footnote 1. 2WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION M. Faucette 197 1-25 Same as above. M. Faucette 198 1-25 Same as above. M. Faucette 199 116 Same as above. J. Mercer 329 20-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (see p. 329, lines 14-16) J. Mercer 330 1-24 Same as above. J. Mercer 338 21-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Brooks English IV-AP class. J. Mercer 340 18-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 341 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 342 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 343 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 344 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 345 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 346 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 348 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 349 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 1-10 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 11-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Art History-AP. J. Mercer 351 1-21 Same as above. J. Mercer 379 10-25 Cross regarding Brooks. J. Mercer 380 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 381 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 382 1-25 Same as above. ^See Footnote 1. 3WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION J. Mercer 383 1-5 Same as above. J. Mercer 394 24-25 Concerns his graduation in 2002. J. Mercer 395 1-10 Same as above. J. Mercer 395 11-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. J. Mercer 396 1-9 Same as above. J. Mercer 398 8-25 Re-cross regarding Brooks.** J. Mercer 399 1-9 Same as above. C. Payne 400 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. C. Payne 401 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 402 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 403 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 404 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 405 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 406 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 407 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 408 1-10 Same as above. C. Payne 408 11-25 Cross concerning his senior year, 2001- 02.5 C. Payne 409 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 410 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 411 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 412 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 413 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 414 1-5 Same as above. C. Payne 414 6-25 Redirect concerning his senior year, 2001- 02. 4 See Footnote 1. ^See Footnote 1. 4WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Payne 415 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 416 10-13 Same as above. D. Thames 418 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. D. Thames 419 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 420 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 421 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 422 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 423 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 424 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 425 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 428 12-25 Same as above. D. Thames 429 1-17 Same as above. D. Thames 434 9-25 Cross regarding Beta Club and National Honor Society. D. Thames 435 1-9 Same as above. D. Thames 436 10-25 Cross regarding Pickering. 7 D. Thames 437 1-2 Same as above. D. Thames 439 1-5 Redirect regarding Beta Club. P. Mercer 453 20-25 Cross regarding Brooks. P. Mercer 454 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 455 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 456 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 457 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 458 1-25 Same as above. See Footnote 1. 7, See Footnote 1. See Footnote 1. This cross relates to Justin Mercers testimony. Pam Mercer only discussed the issue generally without specific reference to Brooks, and Plaintiff has not designated that testimony to be stricken. 5WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION P. Mercer 459 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 460 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 1-11 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 18-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. P. Mercer 462 1-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. J. Carter 497 21-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). J. Carter 498 1-3 Same as above. J. Carter 499 1-16 Same as above. The audit led to recommended staff cuts to be implemented during the 2002-03 school year (see p. 527). J. Carter 501 19-24 Same as above. J. Carter 527 4-11 Cross regarding staff cuts. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the testimony designated herein be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in its Motion to Strike and accompanying brief. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: /I John C. Fendley, Jr. + See Footnote 1. 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on August 9, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA FAX and MAIL) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 e. C. Fendley, Jr. I L F\n\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\des-unitary-mot-strikc-designalions.wpd 7 V FILED is\nhic!' COUR i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLDIT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION u.g. Di\nT'l AUG 1 9 2002 JAM vv. RK Ev T ,.\",P\u0026gt;'^\\NSAE R LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO, 4:82CV00866 WW/TTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL RECEIVED DEFEND.ANTS NIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 1 9 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET .AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSDS REQUEST FOR UNITARY STATUS REGARDING THE PLAN SECTIONS INTRODUCTION This case is before the Court upon the LRSDs motion to be released from Court\nsuperxdsion and to be released from its remedial obligations to African American students. Upon the liability findings of the District Court in 1987 and in earlier proceedings, the first remedial agreement occurred in 1989 and was approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990. Between 1990 and 1998, the District Court, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, oversaw remedial proceedings and, as directed by the Court of Appeals, appointed and involved an Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) staff to assist with achievement of the objectives of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. After repeated hearings before the Court, and upon the urging of the District Court, in January, 1998 the LRSD and the Joshua Inten-'enors entered into a Revised Desegregation and Education Plan before the Court - the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Revised Plan w^as intended to A:''JOSHZ-A.OPP -1-t I implement the orisinai remedy of school desegregation ordered by the Court. The Revised Desegregation Plan was to be a minimum of three (3) years in duration and its terms of expected action were generally set forth therein. It was anticipated that upon compliance the school District would petition, with approval, of the Joshua Intervenors, the Court for release of the District from Court supervision. The predicate for release was substantial compliance with commitments set forth therein and otherwise required by law as well as ancillary agreements entered into on behalf of the Joshua class between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Department of Education. The District developed a Compliance Committee which consisted ofthe school superintendent and his senior staff of associate superintendents. The Compliance Committee was assisted by District counsel during its deliberations. The Joshua Intervenors were not invited or allowed to participate in Compliance Committee deliberations or activities. The District employed two experts with Joshuas approval to assist the District in devising remedies as set forth in the Revised Plan, Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross. The experts were not participants of the Compliance Committee. Ultimately, the Compliance Committee developed the Compliance Report, dated March 15, 2001 which is now before the Court after a second set of hearings before the Honorable William R. Bill Wilson. The first set of hearings occurred in July, August and November of2001 and were overseen by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief District Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas. The LRSD moved for her recusal in October, 2001. The Court denied recusal. Ultimately, these proceedings were scheduled for Januaiy-', 2002 but they were delayed upon motion of Joshua. The Honorable Susan \"Webber Wright decided in January, 2002 to withdraw as the judge in this case and the case was assigned to the Honorable William R. Bill Wilson.i _ I 7 Wilson scheduled and held hearings during July. 2002 upon the objections raised by Joshua the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. After the hearings, the Court required the parties to submit contemporaneous findings of fact and conclusions of law and/or statements in further u of the parties respective positions to the Coun by 11:00 a.m., August 19, 2002. This filing repr nts the Joshua Intervenors compliance with the Courts directive. It also summarizes the rebuttal evidence presented by Joshua through Ms. Ann Marshall. The : -ovisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998 which are now- before the 2 for review' and decision are Sections 2.1., 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11, 2.11.1. These secti idress, among other topics, the obligation to take steps to increase participation of qualified At. an American students in advanced and enriched courses to ensure that there are no barriers to such participation, and to implement programs promoting the success of the students in these courses. These parts of the Plan also address increased participation in extracurricular activities, pre v: on of guidance counseling services in a nondiscriminatory manner and more equity in academic h ..^rs, a.wards and scholarships. The Joshua Intervenors emphasize the importance of giving attention to the overall picture which it portrays regarding the Systems good faith and other matters. Good faith requires conscious intent by the school District to take actions which promote the ultimate j-.\nCTve^ of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We submit that the ultimate objecti \\ es of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan necessarily include elimination ofthe vestiges of racial discrimination and the replacement of those vestiges with policies, programs, practices and procedures w'hich do not lead to resegregation. Joshua submits that the actions of the school district, a xm in the proceedings before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson, demonstrated that the District not acted in good faith in meeting the obligations which are set forth in the A:'JOSffUA.OPP4 _ I January, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 1. THE TESTIMONY OF ODM DIRECTOR ANN MARSHALL REBUTS THE LRSDS POSITION REGARDING EVALUATIONS AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Ms. Marshall testified that when the March 15, 2001 Report was presented, the evaluation documents were not available as represented therein. [Tr. at 15] Many of the evaluations are still not locatable, especially the final reports [Tr. at 16-17] and could, not have been approved by the school board. Dr. Lesley, whose Division of Instruction was responsible for program evaluation. complained to Ms. Marshal! about the LRSDs lack of program evaluations as represented in the Report. [Tr. at 18 (Marshall)] She and Lesley agreed that, the quality of the reports was not good. [Tr. at 33] Marshall stated that the District did not make annual evaluations of all programs as LR represented would occur. (Section 2.7.1 of the Revised .Plan. Tr. at 20-22] Nor did LR make annual assessments of all programs or an annual listing of programs by the assistant superintendent to be assessed annually. [Tr. at 37, 39] She further stated that the school district developed a Research Agenda which further unilaterally narrowed the evaluation requirements of the Plan. The programs which were included in the research agenda were not completed. [Tr. at 36] She also stated that the ODM did not any evaluations of programs on behalf of the LRSD. [Tr. at 23] She testified that LRSD staff whom she met with understood the term assessment when used in the Plan to mean evaluations. Joshua reiterates therefore that the LRSD did not comply with the Plan commitments that it evaluate annually all programs from an effectiveness perspective in order A:yOSHUA.OPP -4-I to determine their efficacy in meeting plan objectives. Joshua now proceeds to address the areas on which the Court allowed the development of evidence during the July, 2002 hearings, Joshua now proposed the following facts A. The Good Faith Requirement of the Section 2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. With respect to Section 2.1, good faith, the Interim Compliance Report does not address that subject. The March 15, 2001 Compliance Report purports to state what the District will do upon unitary' status being declared, what has been done by campus leadership teams in the schools\nand awards which the District has received Itnown as the Arkansas Quality Award, It does not in the body of the report address the objective of remedying the effects of past discrimination and ensuring that for the future racially discriminatory practices will not be reinstituted. Moreover, the District, did not develop a policy with respect, to this provision. B. The Obligations to Identify Qualified African American Students and to Promote their Successful Participation in AP and Other Honor and Enriched Courses 1. The Districts March 2000 and 2001 Compliance Reports 1. The Interim Report indicates that the school shall be active in identifying students for placement for Pre-AP and AP courses. (Interim Report, p. 20). At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses include multiple factors such as 1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performance and 4. B average and above in regular-level class. [CX. 719 (Reg. IHCC-R)\n[Tr. at 49 (Norman)]\n[Tr. at 560 (J. Mosby)] However, in approximately Januaiy' 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that thereafter there would be, basically, a free choice A:UOSHUA.OPP I assignment into advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman)\n[Tr. at 473, 498 (Caner)] 2, The District represents that it approved five new policies which were to ensure that There would be no barriers to African American student participation in advanced courses. (See Interim Report p. 17) Policy IHCC addressed training programs for teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of students to participate in advanced placement courses. Policy IHBB addressed assessing gifted potential through program designs that are flexible and varied enough to be adaptable to individual student need and through curricular designed to nurture gifted potential. Policy DCC addressed calculating grade point averages and rank and class. Policy IKF established enhanced course requirements with a total of twenty-four required units and. increased the rigor of the curriculum. Policy IHBEA addressed English as a second language. 3. Joshua submits that none of these policies addressed the subject of identifying and encouraging .African .American students to participate in advanced placement courses other than possibly Policy IHCC, the Professional Development Program for Teachers and Counselors. Even IHCC does not address the matter of identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of African .American students. 4. Policy IHBB is very general. Policy EKC does not address the issue of race. Policy DCF addresses increasing the units required for graduation and stiffens the requirements for honors at graduation time. Policy IHBBA does not apply to African .Americans although the District says that there are several students with .African backgrounds who may profit by the English as a second language program 5. The 2001 Report indicates that Policy DCF raised the bar even higher so that instead of twenty-four units being required to graduate, students were expected to complete twenty-eight units A:-JOSHUA.OPP -6-I including ai least eight Pre-.AP or AP courses. Raising the bar has not been shown by the District as a program, policy, practice or procedure which reasonably could be expected to either identify or encourage African American students to participate in advanced courses, or to assist them in being successful in advanced courses. Instead raising the bar in the manner the LRSD did became a barrier itself for African American children because of their dismal success on the measurem.ent barometers. 6. The 2001. Report content on pp. 30-31 does not demonstrate how African American students are benefitted by these policies 7. The Interim Report identifies Administrative Regulation IHCCR as being written to promote the percentage of African American students who enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses. The 2001 Compliance Report does not address Regulation IHCCR. No data are presented to show how this procedure has worked in practice between October 21 and March 15, 2001. The other regulations are IKC-R, IKF-R2 but they do not address issues relating to African American students in particular. IKC-R addresses rank in class and IKF-R2 relates to general graduation requirements. Both regulations appear to give advantage to white pupils in AP programs. 8. The 2000 Report (CX. 869 at 22-23) that the District will utilize a Quality Index to promote enrollment of African ^American students in advanced courses in order to make data driven decisions. The District further represents that the Quality Indicators are routinely disaggregated so that progress for each group can be derermined. The Quality Indicators for the high schools were not presented in the 2001 Report except for the percentages of students taking the ACT. The percentage of students taking the AP makes no reference at all to the race of-AP examinees [e.g. 43] Moreover, the District did not present the number of minority students earning a score 19\" on the A:'JOSHUA.OPPI ACT as promised in the Interim Report. The average scores' of racial groups are presented, but th number of AA students who score 19\" or above is not presented, [e.g. 4S-49j. 9. Disaggregated racial data were also promised with respect to students who earned at least 3\" on AP exams. The District did not do this. [e.g. 44] The data presented included percentage of students earning a C or above in AP [e.g. 44] and Pre-AP courses in middle and high schools and the University Studies Program for one year only. [e.g. 44-47] 10, The District is also remiss in presenting data promised in the 2000 Report regarding the Quality Indicators set forth on page 23 [CX. 869] in its Report of March 15, 2001. For example, reference is made in the 2000 Report regarding the percentage of students who perform at the Advanced level on the Grade 4 benchmarks examinations in literacy and math, [p, 2.37\nsee also Tr. at 540] The data presented addresses the at or above proficient rather than, as promised, the. advanced level, p. 103 (literacy), p. 131 (math). 11. The data are not disaggregated with respect to gender. The data would allow consideration of the extent to which .African American males students fare within the District. 12. When the District did not present data, regarding Advanced students it prevented the parties from malting judgments regarding the extent to which African .American students were being compared to other students. Being at or above proficient does not disclose the relative relationship between non African .American students in comparison to African American students. Moreover, the 2000 Report promised to disclose the percentage of students who performed in the top quartile on the SAT9 in reading, language and mathematics, [p. 23] The 2001 report does not disclose the top quartile student performances on the SAT9. The District, however, makes judgments regarding achievement for .African .American students without use of this quality indicator.  [e.g. p. 104-105, .4 :'JOSHUA. OPP -8- 133, 144] 13 13. Of the pre grams that were identified in the Interim Report, reference is made by the District to a new middle school curriculum but the District has always had a specific curriculum for each grade level. A\ncurriculum for middle schools v/as required because the District changed from a six-three-three emto a five-three-four system in 1997 The purported new curriculum was neither developed or intended for African American students. The National Science Foundation Project was listed as a program but in the final report no reference is made to the National Science Foundation results. Theie s no showing that it has increased African .American participation in AP courses. 14. The Un, iBS Program at Hall High Schoo! is identified but it does not address African American student.. Rather it seeks to target strong students who have the capacity of doing college work. By its terms, African American students are not targeted! To be eligible for enrollment strong students\nust have either a minimum grade point average of 2.5 on half of their college preparatoiy' course / ' a minimum grade point average of 3.0\nor a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. The 2001 * rt with the disaggregated data presented by the District shows the race of the average student with a score of 21 on the ACT to be white or .Asian. Black students are almost four numbers below that score. Moreover, the District did not present any charts which showed the number of studen' a.t Hall who made minimum grade point averages of 2.5 on at least half of their college preparatory irses nor did it enumerate in a chan the number by race of strong students who have the capacity ot doing college work. The University Studies Program, therefore. tended to favor the stronger students with the better grades, the higher test score averages with means which is another wav of sa A g that it favored white students! A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -9-15. Page 15 cf the 2001 Report reflects the enrollment by race in the University Studies Program. What began as a majority Black enrollment evolved in one year to clearly a majority white enrollment taken from within a majority Black school. As is shown throughout these findings, this result could have been anticipated because of the financial costs associated with participation in the University Studies Program. Those costs constitute a barrier to panicipation. We note that now that the program includes most of Halls white children, the plan is for the course grade to be weighted. [Tr. at 110 (P. Watson)]. 2. The Evidence at the Hearing 16 Dr. Steven Ross is one of the two experts approved by the Joshua Intervenors and hired by the Little Rock School District pursuant to Section 2.1.1 of the Revised Plan. Dr. Ross is a Professor of Educational Research and Director for the Center of Research and Educational Policy at the University of Memphis. Dr. Ross is deeply involved in working with school districts, primarily urban school districts, on how to develop and to evaluate programs and how to address the needs of children at-risk. He has worked with the Memphis, Nashville, Detroit, Atlanta and Little Rock school districts. [Tr. at 538-541(Ross)] 17. Dr. Ross identified an educationally reasonable approach to promoting participation by qualified African American students in. advanced placement and other enriched courses and implementing programs to assist these students to be successful. He defined a qualified student as a student, who has a reasonable chance of benefitting, a reasonable chance of success. Identifydng such students would involve use of archival data in Little Rock that would, have shown the success rates of students in advanced placement courses, in honors courses that are at different levels of achievement on the state test, as well as the view's of principals and curriculum specialists A:^JOSHUA.OPP -10-in the District who have had experience with African American students and white students who are at lower or higher ends of the continuum on ability, with suggestions for what type of students... would have a reasonable chance of success if admitted to an advanced class. With this combination of science and reason he would try to help the school system  to develop some selective cutoffs or some systematic approach for deciding which .African American students were, qualified, which were likely to benefit. For students with test scores at the lower end on state mandated standardized tests, his advice would be admit them to advanced classes on a more selective, level, that is., considering factors such as prior grades, family support, and motivation. [Tr. at 542-547 (Ross)] 18. In the context of section 2.6.2 of the Plan, addressing implement[ation] [of] programs to assist African Americans in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses,  Dr. Ross gave the following testimony [ Tr. at 548]: My approach would be, for students who are entering a course, in advanced course or an honors course, AP course or advanced, course, to ensurethe term we use in educationalpsychology is scaffoldingmeaning support, because the history that that student who is at basic has had. is struggling to succeed in a regular course. Imagine if you struggle to run. a mile, and then all of a sudden you asked to run five miles. Chances are you are not going to do better at that five miles\nyou are going to struggle more. So I would, want, to provide support systems that can do everything possible to ensure that, students who we consider qualified can benefit. Examples -would be Saturday classes, -which are used, in a lot of districts, extended day, peer coaching, smaller class sizes, computer -assisted, instruction that gives exti'a support, programs with families where parents are not taught to tutor, but parents are taught hoyv to help their children get the work done at. home, courses on how to study. There's a range of support systems that can increase the chances that an at risk child or adolescent can do well, in advanced courses. 19. Dr. Ross testified that he wound not advocate placing students at the lowest levels of state test courses into advanced placement courses without the kinds of programs he described. [Tr. A:J0SffU4.0PP -11-1 at 549] 20. The approach described by Dr. Ross grows out ofthe provision in Section 2.6 of the Plan for promoting participation of qualified .African American students in advanced and enriched courses and the provision of Section 2.6.2 of the Plan which requires implementaiion of programs to assist these students in being successful in the enriched and advanced courses. The paragraphs which follow show: (a) the activities required of the LRSD to promote additional participation of African American students in advanced programing were not carried out, or, were cursory in nature. (b) LRSD has not demonstrated an increase in participation in advanced and enriched classes, comparing the totality of such programming prior to and during the Plan period, (c) LRSD adopted, during the Plan period, criteria for admission to Pre-AP and AP classes which allow any student regardless of test scores and. prior performance to select such classes., without an individualized consideration of the students ability to benefit\nand (d) LRSD had, during the Plan period, clearly inadequate scaffolding to assist lower performing students in being successful in advanced and enriched classes. 21. The LRSD asserted that it fulfilled its obligation of a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African American students participation.... in advanced placement and honors and enriched courses. [Section 2.6.1] However, there was no evidence of such a training program for  teachers and counselors  during of the... three years of [the Plan.]\n[Tr. at 186-89 (Faucette)] 22. Ms. Patricia Watson has served as a guidance counselor in the LRSD for approximate!}' 28 years, 23 years at Central and 5 years at Hall. She was the lead counselor at Hall during the term ofthe Plan. [Tr. at 100] She did not recall any specific training program each year of the Revised A:'JOSmJA.OPP -12-t Desegregarion and Education Plan which was designed to train counselors in encouraging participation of African American students in Pre-.AP and AP classes. [Tr, at 101] Ms. Watson further testified that although the director of Guidance and Counseling for the LRSD conducted monthly in-service training sessions between 1998 and 2001, she could not recall any training relating to encouraging panicipation of African Americans in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 103-04] 23 2j. When the subject matter of encouraging participation of African American students in advanced and enriched courses was raised by a LRSD administrator, the presentation was brief and pro forma. [Tr. at 90 (C. Norman)], [Tr. at 102 (P. Watson), [Tr. at 473, 490 (J. Carter)] 24. Prior to the advent of the Revised Plan, and continuing through the first year of the Plan, the types of advanced and enriched programming offered in the LRSD included advanced placement classes, as well as honors and enriched classes. Effective with the second year of the Plan (1999- 2000), LRSD utilized the categories ofPre-AP  and AP to encompass the prior categories of AP, honors and enriched. [Tr. at. 376, 11/20/01 (Lesley)\nCX. 869, p. 18, 29] An accurate determination of any progress in increasing participation of African American students in advanced and enriched programming requires consideration of this change. Merely reclassifying students who were in honors and enriched classes as advanced classes does not qualify as real progress in attaining the goal of Section 2.6. The District did not cite any actions that it had taken to promote an increase in participation of African American students in advanced programs. The Districts plan is to increase the number of AP courses and Pre-AP courses that are available and to cutout other courses so that the result would be more students would be forced to take Pre-AP and AP courses. 25. As evidenced by p. 38 of the March, 2001 Report, the greatest numerical increase of -African .American pupils in .AP courses, 154, occurred when honors and enriched courses were ended A: 'JOSHUA. OPP -13- after the 1998-99 school year. At the same time, the other numbers increased by 160, from 936 to 1096. This means that the proportion of white students enrolled in AT courses actually increased. The chart on p. 3 8 of the 2001 Report reflects that African .American students assigned to .AP courses fell from 37% in 1997-98 to 35% in 2000-01. The reality therefore is that whatever changes took place in .AP, the disparity which existed in 1998 continued at least through March, 2001. 26. .At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre- .AP and AP courses included multiple factors such as 1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performance and 4. B average and above in regular-level class. [CX. 719 (Reg. IHCC-R\nTr. at 49 (Norman)\nTr. at 560 (J. Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria, so that thereafter there would be, basically, a free choice of the more rigorous advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman)\nTr. at 473, 498 (Carter)] 27. In 2000-01, 65% of the enrollment in AP courses was white [Tr. at 747 (Lesley)] roughly double the proportion of white enrollment in the LRSD. The free choice approach promoted the attendance of additional white students in classes disproportionately white 28. As indicated, Dr. Ross testified that the availability of a BROAD R.ANGE OF SUPPORT PROGRAM (SCAFFOLDING) IS .AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF .AN INITIATIVE WHiCL PLACES POORLYPERFORMING STUDENTS IN ADVANCED AND ENRICHED COURSES. See par. 18. LRSD WRITTEN STANDARDS -ARE TO THE SAVIE EFFECT [CX. 719, Policy IHBD.A IHBDA-R, IHBD.A-R2]. However, LRSDs implementation fo its standards, required as to advanced and enriched courses by Section 2.6.2 falls short. (a) August 1, 2001 during the hearing conducted by Judge Wright, .Associate A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -14-f Superintendent for Instruction and Bonnie Lesley and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of Student Academic Improvement Plans (SALPs), or other interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards. [Tr. 8-1-01, at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (Mitchell)\nat 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] (b) The LRSD provided no information on the actual availability of SAIPs for poorly performing students entering Pre-,AP and AP courses during the term of the Revised Plan, during the most recent hearing. (c) The support programs actually available for Pre-AP and AP students, identified at the hearing, were well, short of those identified as necessary by Dr Ross and the LRSD in regulation IHBDA-R. [Tr. at 93, 95, (C Norman)\n491-92, 523, 524 (J. Carter), 563-68 (J. Mosby)\n743-44 (Lesley)] C. The Obligation to Address Barriers to Participation In AP and Honors and Enriched Courses 29. During the three-year Plan period, the four Associate Superintendents served as the Districts Compliance Committee with respect to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs coordinated their efforts. The group was to oversee the overall compliance effort with the terms of the Plan, with each associate retaining primary- responsibility for those aspects of system operations within his/her normal area of responsibility. The compliance committee had the primary responsibility for the identification and removal of barriers to participation in advanced and enriched courses (and extracurricular activities). [Tr. at 130 (Babbs)]\n.4\n'JOSHUA. OPP -15-1 (See also Court Ex. 544, CX. Ex. 869 (March 2000 Report) at 1-2]. 30. The LRSD described the compliance committee and the responsibilities of the associate superintendents as follows in the March 2000 Compliance Report (at 1-2, emphasis added)\nThe Associate Superintendents of Administrative Services, Instruction, Operations, and School Seiwices and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent comprise the \"Compliance and quality Assurance Committee.  The committee has responsibility for the development, implementation, oversignt, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program includes any programs, policies, and/or procedures necessary to ensure that the District fillfills all of its obligations under the Revised Plan. The committee meets weekly to discuss compliance issues and to discuss plan implementation in their respective areas. The compliance philosophy is based on internalizing the Revised Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For example, the instruction division is responsible for integrating the Revised Plan's requirements into development of the curriculum, staff development, and other similar functions of that division. Tne associate superintendent who heads the division is the responsible person for the components of the Revised Plan that are appropriate for his,'her division. Through the internalization ofthe philosophy and. the integration of the Revised Plan into the District A structure, the respective divisions proactively monitor compliance. The associate superintendents are responsiblefor taking appropriate action with respect to incidents of non-compliance and taking steps to prevent future similar incidents of non-compliance. a. The Limited Assignment of Black Teachers to .Advanced and Enriched Courses 31. The LRSD administrators who studied the existence of potential barriers to greater African .American participation in AP classes identified the paucity of .African American teachers as relevant. [Tr. at 71-72, 694-95 (Lesley)]\nSee also [Tr, at 184-86 (Faucette)] .Although significant progress could have been made by the manner in which teachers were assigned to courses by principals, [Tr. at 695 (Lesley)]\n[Tr. at 46 (Norman)]\n[Tr. at 517 (Carter)], little or nothing has been done. 32. In Central High School, the flagship school [Tr. at 612 (Daugherty)] most of the AP ArJGSHUA.OPP -16-f teachers were white. [Tr. at 291-296 (R. Horton)\nTr. at 321, 323, 324 (C. Mercer)\nTr. at 336-37, 338-339, 353,( J. Mercer)] Black teachers were excluded, almost entirely, from advanced English teaching assignments [Tr. at 175-76, 78,179-80 (Faucette)] The LRSD touts its participation in the Teacher of Color program. [Tr. at 671-72 (Lesley)] However, LRSDs evidence shows its participation in this non district sponsored program did not begin until the 2001-2002 school year. [Tr. at 736 (Lesley)] Moreover, the System could have only seven participants per year and the evidence was of high school placement of teachers only at Hall with, significantly, no participation at Central. [Tr, at 736-37 (Lesley)] [Ex. 826] b. The Hostile Treatment of African American Students in Advanced Courses 33. Black students enrolled in Pre-AP and AP classes have been subjected to a variety of forms of harassment and other hostile behaviors by white teachers. [Tr, at 57,, 70 (Norman), Tr. at 102-3, 111-112 (P Watson), Tr. at 291-93, 312 (R. Horton), Tr. at 321-22 (C Mercer)\nTr. at 336- 38 (J. Mercer), Tr. at 401-406 (C. Payne)\nTr. at 427-31 (D.J. Thames)\nTr. at 440-442 (A. Thames)] Dr. Faucette also testified that counselors intentionally did not guide African .American students into higher level classes. [Tr. at 208] 34. The impact of the harassment and hostile behavior identified in paragraph (33), supra. extends beyond the particular black student who is its victim. It is observed by other students in the class. Moreover, such incidents are a topic of discussion among students. [Tr. at 342 (J. Mercer)\nat 576 (J. Mosby)] The inevitable consequence of the harassment is to identify advanced and enriched courses as a hostile environment for black students and one which they should shun. [Tr. at 70 (C. Norman)\nTr. at 632, 651-52 (Roberts)] A:'JOSHUA. OPP -17-r k c. The Multiple Barriers to Access to the University\" Studies Program . The LRSD and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock jointly operate within the Hall High School facility the University Studies Program. Courses are co-taught bv Hall High School teachers and UALR personnel. [CX. 869 (March 2000 Report) at 27] [underlining added for emphasis] This program began functioning in 1999-2000. Students are informed of this option on the course selection sheets distributed by the school system  Grade 11-12 students may take a variety of courses for which they receive both high and college credit. [March 2000 at 27] The program is recognized by the LRSD to provide advanced or enriched courses as described in Section 2.6 of the revised plan. [CX. 870 (March 2001 Report) at 46\n[Tr. at 734 (Lesley)] [Two teachers per course represent a strong commitment to promoting the academic achievements of already high achieving students.] 36. In order to enroll in this program, a student must pay for each course taken one half of the normal tuition charged for the comparable course at UALR and for related expenses. [Tr. at 109- 110 (P, Watson)], [Tr. at 730 (Lesley)] 37, To be eligible to participate [in the University Studies Program], students must have a minimum grade point average of on at least 50% of the college preparatory courses\nor a minimum overall grade average of 3.0, or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. [March 2000 Report at 27] 38. The evidence cited in paragraphs 33 through 37, infra, and 39 through 44, supra, shows that the program operates in a manner which promotes racial segregation within Hall High School, due in large part to the financial barriers created by the tuition and related expenses requirement and by the ACT score requirement. A:'JOSHUA.OPP -18-\u0026lt; 39. The enrollment of Hall High School was approximately 80 to 90% as of 2001-2002 school year. [Tr. at 106 (P. Watson)] The racial makeup of the University studies courses was as follows in the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001: 99-00 00-01 Total Enrollment 136 162 AA (%) 79(58%) 57(35%) Non AA(%) In Courses 57(42%) 105(65%) 40. These data show: (a) in 2000-2001 the number of .African American students participating declined by 22, 28%\n(b) in 2000-2001 the number of non African American students increased by 48, 60%, (c) in 1999-2000, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by two times\n(d) in 2000-2001, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by three times, (e) the. in-school segregative effect ofthe program greatly increased in the second year of its operation. [March 2001 Report at 46] 41. TheLRSDreported ACT results by race for the years 1997-1998\n1998-1999\n1999-2000 in the March 15, 2001 Report, [at 48] These data show that the average composite score (on the four sections of the ACT for white students for the three school years was respectively, 22.2, 22.5. and 21.5. In contrast, the average composite score for African .American students for these thre! years was 17.2, 17.2, and 17.3. These data provide some evidence the ACT of the alternative criterion for entry into the University Studies Program had significant racial impact. 42. The LRSD did not include in either the March 2000 or March 2001 Report data on grade point averages at Hall High School which would allow an analysis of the racial impact if any of the GPA standards selected for use in admission to the University Studies Program. A:JOSHVA.OPP -19-r  43. Two types of evidence in the record provide a basis for concluding that the racially segregated enrollment of the University Studies Program is attributed at least in part to the requirement that students pay partial tuition. (a) Poverty Index in LRSD - According to an exhibit offered in this case by the LRSD, in the three years of the Revised Plan, 68% of the Black students enrolled in the District and 22-24% of the white students were eliaible for free or reduced lunch. Court Ex. 731 (b) Many witnesses agreed that the tuition requirement would have a. racial impact in the LRSD in view of the pattern of family income by race. [Tr. 110 at HOP, Watson)]\n[Tr. at 532(J. Carter)]\n[Tr. at 602 (Strickland)]\n[Tr. at 605-6lO(Daughtery)]\n[Tr. at 624-627(Roberts)]\n[Tr. at 732 (Lesley)] 44. The March 2001 Report (at 46) sets forth the racial makeup of the University Studies courses for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. However, neither the March 2000 Report nor the March 2001 Report contain any indication that the LRSD considered or analyzed of or analyzed whether the admission and tuition requirements of the University Studies Program promoted segregation. This silence occurs in the face of Section 2.1 (... to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools and Section 2.6 ... to ensure that there are no barriers to qualified .African Americans...). 45. In the instance of the University Studies Program, there is no evidence of the Compliance Committee, or Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley proactively monitor[ing] compliance. d. Other Barriers and Broken Promises as Shown bv the March. 2000 and A:^JOSHUA.OPP -20-i 2001 Reports 46, The 2000 Report addressed the Talent Development Plan as a program to ensure the enrollment high performing students in advanced classes, [Tr, at 28-30] There is no reference made in the final report of the Talent Development Plan. The Talent Development Plan has not been demonstrated to be in existence in practice. The principal of Franklin School. Ethel Dunbar, [Tr, at 588] and Pat Watson, Counselor at Hall High School [Tr, at 104-105], were unaware of this program. This is likely because the Talent Development Plan was repudiated by Dr. Lesley. It involved a commitment to a project called A,VID. Project AVID which was encompassed with the Talent Development Plan but has never been implemented because of its purported high costs and because the District did not get a grant, to fund it, [Tr, at 747 (Lesley)] The 2001 report makes no reference to either the Talent Development Plan or Project AVID, The 2000 Interim Report, in lamenting the fact that it did not get an AVID grant said, these, programs would have assisted the District in its goal of increasing minority participation in higher level courses, including the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level,\" (p, 30) 47, The Interim Report also promised implementation of an .Accelerated Academic Student Academic Program, (AS.AP), a primary purpose of which was to radically narrow the achievement gap between .African .American and white students, (p. 31), The 2001 Report makes no reference to the ASAP program, however, ASAP vanished. On p, 33 of the Interim Report, there is a note that all program components are incorporated in this dr^. Later on the page, the plan was identified as being tentative and dependent upon submitting a proposal for funding from the federal government. On p, 34, it is clear that it is simply a proposal: the District will also investigate other possible sources of funds for the other four middle schools, A:'JOSHUA.OPP -21-( 48. The 2000 Report proposed an English LTI Pre-.AR Workshop on a voluntary basis for teachers. This proposal did not focus upon -African American students in panicular. It allowed high schools the option, for two years, of offering double period English program at both the regular and Pre-AP levels. The 2001 report indicates that the workshop was instituted at several schools during 2000-01 and that as of January, 2001, the optional program would continue at one of the schools through the next school year. Principal Carter of McClellan indicated that his teachers chose not to participate in this program. This was not a required program and cannot be said as a district initiative designed to promote and increase participation in AP and Pre-AP programs. The District presented no data which reflected the benefits of this workshop to African American Students. [Tr. at 525-526 (J. Carter)] 49. The 2001 Report makes reference to a International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle and McClellan High Schools, [p. 34J The IBP was proffered as a program for increasing .African American participation in AP and Pre-.AP courses. According to Principal Carter, the program was designed to promote enrollment of African American children into a more rigorous curriculum and to attract white students to the school. It was dependent upon non district fu.nds for its creation and operation. The District wrote that If this grant is funded . . the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category' of advanced and challenging courses available to students and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed along with the .AP and Pre-AP and University courses, (p. 34). 50. The IBP program does not operate and was not funded!!. Principal Carter testified that Dr. Bonnie Lesley opposed the program because she thought it was not a good mix for the McClellan student body. [Tr. at 529. 30] Dr. Lesley did not contradict Mr. Carters statement! A:^JOSHUA.OPPi 51. The Districts support for the University Studies Program which favors white students is to be compared the EBP program which in design gave some favor to Black children. The administration strongly supported one with District funds and local college support but it did not support the other one, the IBM, with financial or administrative level support. 52. In the 2001 Report, the District notes that in the 2000-2001 school year it added two -UP courses, Human Geography and Economics in order to promote African American participation in AP course, (p. 33) The Human Geography program which was offered began as a majority white program, nine whites, five Blacks (see p. 38). The Economics program apparently did not make in 2000-2001 because there were no students reported as being in the class. Justin Mercer attempted during the 2000-20001 school term to take the course and was refiised because there was no one to teach it. [Tr. at 352, 357] (See p. 33) When one reviews the .AP courses added, World History, Physics II, Science Pre-AP and Advanced Science/Theoretical II. Moreover, Advanced Science Theoretical II, it is clear they were not being added so as attract and benefit more African American students. These appear college focused, i.e., Central College. [Tr. at 365-66 (J. Mercer)] 53. The LRSD asserted that it. had fLilftUed its obligation of Section 2.6.2 by implementing programs to assist African American students to be successfiil in and advanced placement courses. The Interim Report, (Page 39-40) does not identify any policies that, it developed to assist African American students in being successful. The section speaks only to programs. The programs which are listed are College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP)\nAcademic Enricliment and Gifted in Summer (AEGIS)\nSouth East Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME)\nSMART, a summer program for about 200 students\nSchool Based Student Support Teams\nand English I and II Workshop - Pre-AP, CPEP and AEGIS are not held out as being for the A:VOSHUA.OPP -23-I purpose of assisting African Americans in being successful in advanced courses. SECME was a grant program for the purpose of preparing and motivating students in technical fields. It had a goal of increasing the pool of minorities who were qualified for college studies in engineering, math and science. SIVLART does not identify the students who will be served. The English Pre-AP workshops were optional. The school based support teams had the purpose of monitoring student achievement and providing support and necessary interventions to students at-risk of failure. The District did not present any monitoring reports are results of achievement regarding the school based support teams. 54. The March 15, 2001 Report did not address any of the programs identified in the Interim Report. Instead, it talks about gifted and talented programs specialists and facilitators. These programs are for the teachers who are provided opportunities for professional growth, and receive a publication known as Shcning the Good News. Because of their outlined training those teachers are expected to become resources for other teachers 55. Other possible programs presented in the 2001 Report: are briefly discussed again under this subsection: a) Two courses, Human Geography and Economics were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001, World Historj' and Physics II were added to the curriculum for 2002. Advanced Science/Theortical Research II was added to the curriculum for 2001. There is no showing of how these courses are. directed toward the success in them for AA students. [CX. 870, p. 33] b) The proposed International Baccalaureate Programme (IBP) was contingent upon finding which did not occur between 1998-2001 [e.g. pp. 33-34] (c) Middle School research and writing Pre-AP are not held out as programs to assist A:'JOSHUA.OPP -24-I i .African American students. (d) High School Reading and Writing Workshop I is an optional program which Fair, Hall and McClellan opted to include in their schedules. There is no representation that the workshop was intended to assist .African American students at being successful in advanced courses. (e) Teachers and counselor training has a goal to provide teachers with training to ensure that all students are successful in upper level courses. The funds for this program are provided by the State of Arkansas. This in-service training is required by the Arkansas Department of Education . (0 The 2001 Report refers to revision of Policy IKF/General Ed Graduation Requirements. This policy raised the recommended number of units for graduation to 28\" including at least 8\" Pre-AP or .AP courses. There is no showing ofhow this will benefit African American students in being successful in .AP courses, [e. p.30] (g) The policies, programs and procedures in both the 2000 and 2001 Reports represent recitation of normal school activities, raising the bar for graduation and creating courses that will favor students in advanced courses who are already high achievers. The courses added may substitute for college courses (h) .There are no programs identified in either which are specifically designed to African American students in being successful in advanced placement during the regular school year. (i) The SECME Program operated for one year. [Tr. at 105 (P. Watson)] 0) The other programs either were not implemented or were not supported by use of any A:UOSHUA.OPP -25-i data in either report, [e.g. CX 69, pp. 40-41, CX 870, pp. 31-50] (k) The summer programs CPEP, SMART and .AEGIS have limited enrolled. [Tr. at 738, 747 (Lesley)] (1) The District did not identify and present data which delineated participation in any scaffolding or support programs such as those described by Dr. Ross as being necessary to assist .African .American students in being successful in advanced courses. [Tr. at 548, 549 (Ross)] [See also Tr. at 465, 480, 490, 492, 499, 523, 529 (Carter)\nTr. at 88, 93, 95 (Norman), Tr. at 564, 566, 576 (Mosby)\nTr. at 585 (Dunbar), Tr. at 747 (Lesley)] D. The Obligations to Promote Participation of Qualified African .Americans in Extracurricular Activities 56. With respect to Section 2.6, the March 15, 2001 Report purports to show an increase in African American extracurricular participation between 1997-98 and 1999-00, p. 27. The figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The general increase represents 122% for African .Americans and 129% for non .African .American students. With respect to the Districts chart on p. 28 regarding co-curricular activity participation, the aggregated data show an African American increase from 2579 to 3988. That reflects a 54.6% increase. Non black participation, however. increased from 1222 to 1864, a percentage increase of 52.5%. The extracurricular activity and co- curricular activity general participation therefore remained steady. 57. By LRSD presenting aggregated data, [ir. at 740 (Lesley)\nCX. 747 [Babbs] the Court is not in a position to effectively determine whether the data reflect actual improvement in African .American participation in the respective schools. Accordingly, the anecdotal testimony of wdtnesses A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -26-becomes more relevant with respect to dererminins whether the policies, programs or procedures which the District developed are working. The policies which the LRSD developed purportedly to meet the requirements of the Plan represent either revision of existing purported policies or codification of practices long in force. The policies which are applicable to the instant proceeding are: a) Policy JJR - Student Co-Curricular Extracurriculai- Activities [CX. Ex. 719] This policy requires that when disparities are identified in co-curricular activities, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where possible. b) Policy JJIB -R 1- High School Interscholastic Athletics Cheerleading Drill Team/Pep Club [CX. Ex. 719] This policy also requires that when racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate. It is also requires (5) that transportation will be provided to all students participating in athletic and spirit group activities. [Policy JJTB -R2 applies to the middle schools and essentially repeats the provision in JJIB-Rl] c) Policy JBA-R NonDicrimination in Programs and Activities [CX. Ex. 719] This policy requires each school to develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation. It also requires the development and implementation of a plan for nondiscrimination in programs and activities at each school This policy does not include the required improvement plan notes in policies JJR and JJIB-Rl and R-2] d) Policy DFD-R2 Athletic Gate Receipts and Admissions [CX. Ex. 719] .4. JOSHUA.OPP -27- 'oI This policy requires that in cooperation with the Activities Advisory Board (AAB), there will be a comprehensive athletic and activities plan developed by the District to address the needs of the students...  The steering committee will serve as staff providing technical assistance and support to the AAB. 58. The District staff determined that there were disparities which they identified in co- curricular and extracurricular activities.^ The District staff who addressed the subject include the .Associate Superintendent for Student Services, Sadie Mitchell, the zAssistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, Dr. Marian Lacey, Jodie Carter, Principal of McClellan High School, Ms. Cassandra Norman, Principal of Fair High School, and Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. These staff members acknowledged an awareness of racially identifiable activities and of disparities: Ms. Mitchell [Tr. at 261, 262, 268, 269]\nDr. Lacey [Tr. at 790, 791]\nPrincipal Carter [Tr. at 474, 492, 493, 502, 503], Principal Norman [Tr. at 71, 72]\nMr. Babbs [Tr at 13 3 ]. Other witnesses who testified that there were racial disparities with respect to curricular and extracurricular activities were Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312, 313]\nMichael Faucette, [Tr. at 199, 200, 201,203-206]\nCrystal Mercer, a student at Central High School [Tr at 322,323]\nJustin Mercer [Tr. at 386, 387, 388] 59. The March 15, 2001 Report contains (at 28) under the heading Activities Advisory' Board, the following content: \"At. the time of the District's Interim Compliance Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advisory Board. (\"AAB\") for the purpose of Hhe activities identified included, inter alia, baseball, cheerleaders, debate, future problem solvers, odyssey of the mind, student newspaper, mock trial, orchestra, quiz bowl, soccer, swim team, tennis, volleyball and yearbook staff. [Tr. at 136, 133-35 (Babbs)\nTr. at 199-200, 203 (Faucette)\nTr. at 261-262 (Mitchell), Tr. at 358-360, 362-364 (Mercer)] A:'JOSHUA.OPP -28-J 5 promoting, supporting and enhancing extracurricular activities and co-curricular activities at all schools. The AAB, comprised of District staff, parents, student and community' representatives, began monthly meetings in April of2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. The focus of these discussion has been on a disproportinate number of African American students -who do not hcre the financial resources to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and implementation include... funding, accessibility.. Each area has been discussed, in connection with increasing student participation with emphasis on assuring Afi'i can American participation, [underlining added for emphasis] 60. Despite the finding of the AAB, there was no system budget account to assist a student for whom family finances was a barrier for participation in extracurricular activities. [Tr. at 802 (Dr. Lacey).] The system addressed the acknowledged program by a patchwork, of activities, not represented to function in all schools\nmoreover, Dr. Lacey testified that there was no systematic effort to publicize the availability of these funds. Associate Superintendent Babbs, who coordinated the efforts of the Compliance Committee, could identify no substantial activity undertaken by that body. [Tr at 144, 146 (Babbs) - 3 to 5] 61 The District is obliged to address barriers to participation of qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities. Despite the LRSDs consistent emphasis on the differences between family incomes in the systems white and African families , Poverty Income information CX 731], the record reveals a lack of any systematic effort to address financial barriers within the meaning of Section 2.6. 62. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, .Associate Superintendent for School Services, never developed a plan for remedying disparities or imbalances in participation in extra or co-curricular activities. [Tr. at 262] She left this to the discretion of the principals. But she excused their inaction by blaming the victim. They have choice she said. [Tr. at 268] 63. Sadie Mitchell was responsible for proactively monitoring compliance and taking A-VOSHUA.OPP -29-I I appropriate action with respect to incidents of non-compliance. [Tr. at 136, 138 (Babbs)] Ms. Mitchell testified to her shirking this responsibility [Tr. at 262-263, emphasis added]: Q- A. You are aware. Letsjust talk about the reality. You were aware -you ha\\e not heard the testimony. But you are aware, for instance, quiz bowl and debate, Odyssey of the Mind, various activitieswere all white, were you not?] Yes. Q- I see. Did you develop a pleat for changing that? A. 1 did twt develop a plan. The building principal did. Q. Well, in the three years that the plan was in operation before the report seeking release fi'om unitary status, did you have any occasion to prepare any writing reflecting that wa.s shared, with the Joshua Intervenors or the public reflecting what actions you would, take to change those patterns? A. I did not, because Joshua did not request a report through the formal compliance complaint. Q- You. are suggesting that you only prepare requests or reports at Joshua's request, are you? A. I only respond to comolaints from patrons, community, Joshua. ODMs. and anybody else, through formal complaints. Q- So you never made an evaluation or assessment even of those things io determine the extent to which black participation was being minimized? A. 1 did not personally. Staff members did. Q- I see. Was there a plan of action developed by the Compliance Committee for dealing with the lack of black participation in activities like cheerleader and things like that? A. There was no plan developed by the Compliance Committee. The principals developed plans, along with the sponsors. 64. The LRSD presented as part of its case no such plan by a principal or a sponsor. This included testimony that the myriad activities at Central High School had racially disparate A.DOSffDAOPF -30-i 1 participation, a problem not discussed at faculty meetings. [Tr. at 199-200, 207 (Faucette)] 65. The LRSD reported that 90% of African American parents that expressed an opinion reported that they had activities available to their students. [Tr. at 773 (Lacey)] This answer does not address parental views regarding whether racial barriers to participation in school activities exist. African American school board member Mike Daugherty who has disassociated liimself from the petition before the Court was uncomfortable with information being given strictly in percentages rather than in actual numbers regarding the survey. [Tr. at 614] 66. No District witness testified that there was a specific plan, which the District through any representative, developed for addressing the disparities in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. Some ofthe disparities were not the result of financial resources or the lack thereon by students. At McClellan and Fair many activities were not offered because of the lack of teacher sponsors and lack of staff member encouragement to students to participate. [Tr. a.t 477. 478, 492, 533 (Carter)] [Tr, at 74, 92 (Norman)] 67. The District obviously did not follow policies JJR, JJIV and JBA-R because after disparities were identified, it did not develop an improvement plan in any area nor did it. develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activdties to ensure that there were no barriers to participation. The school district plan commits the District to developing remedies and to promote participation. The school district delegates these responsibilities to the principals. This is contraiy' to the Plan in that compliance is a district administrative obligation. 68. Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director during the 1998-2001 school years addressed the problems which African American students experienced in extracurricular activities. 69. He investigated an incident where a white coach acknowledged that he choked a black A:-JOSHUA.OPP -31-t I student at SW Middle School. [Tr. at 5 73-576 (Mosby) (See also CX 771)]. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Gillespies supervisor, downplayed the incident saying she didnt think it was a real choking incident, but the coach admitted that he choked the child after he lost his temper. [Tr. at 274-275] Mitchells testimony reveals the attitude of the LR administration regarding compliance She and the Compliance Committee would have profited by use of the experts, especially Dr. Terrence Roberts in addressing plan commitments. See paragraphs 126(a), (b) and (c). 70. Gillespie testified that it was a ven,' severe offense. This occurred during football practice when other students were present. [Pp. 7-11, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 71 Gillespie cited similar incidents including a coach fighting an .African .American student (pp. 15-17, Deposition of Gillespie) at Hall\nand. a white coach slapping an African American student at. Mann Middle School [Pp. 26-28, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 72. The same coach involved in the chokina incident at SW Middle Schoo.1 also called an -African American female student a bitch. [ Pp. 11-13, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 73. Gillespie also testified that parents were upset at the middle school regarding Quiz Bowl, Band, Science Clubs and 9' grade athletics at the Middle Schools. (See CX. 770/772, p. 21, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 74. Several of the students explained their lack of encouragement with respect to participation in extracurricular activities. D.T Thames, a student at Fair High School, was discouraged by the repeated use of profanity by his Coach, Randy Rutherford [Tr. at 419-20] He also testified about the racially preferential treatment which Rutherford provided to white team players. [Tr. at 421-423, 432] /o. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that he was discouraged from A:'JOSHUA.OPPI ( participating in Quiz Bowl by Ms. Pickering, a white teacher, who told him that he could not be on the A team [Tr. at 403-04]. 76. Payne stated that his white Calculus Teacher, Mr. Wilder, refused to write a recommendation for him because he didnt think Payne was smart enough to attend Governors School [ Tr. at 404] 77. Payne also explained that Ms. Klais gave him a recommendation to a college which she wrote on a piece of notebook paper for him. He was aware that she had written recommendations for white students on school letterhead. [Tr. at 407] 78. Payne also testified that he was aware that Coach Rutherford cursed African American players but not white players. [Tr. at 414] 79. Crystal and Justin Mercer testified that they sought to participate in mock trial. They were discouraged from participation. [Tr at 322-23, 386-389] Justin was also discouraged from participating in debate [Tr. at 3 61 -62] and from starting a club, the purpose of which was to promote interracial diversity at Centra! High School by a white teacher named Mr. Meadows. [Tr. at 3 96-3 97] 80. Dr. Faucette sought to receive support for his creating writing club, but did not receive it from the principal. The club had a. previous history of racial diversity. [Tr. at 192-96, 19-30] E. The Obligations to Promote Participation of Qualified African American Students in Extracurricular Activities and to Ensure That There are No Barriers to Such Participation 81. In Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan, the LRSD promised to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified Mrican Americans in extracurricular activities. . . . The LRSD adopted several regulations identifying activities to promote compliance with Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan A:'JOSHUA.OPP -J j-1 regarding extracurricular activities. 82. There were segregated acrivities and apparent barriers to .African .Americans participation in them. Section 2.6, implementing regulations, and the compliance structure created pursuant to Sections 2.13, 2.13.1, and Section 6 of the Plan called for a practical response to these problems. The system defaulted. F. The Obligation to Provide Transportation to Students for Participation in After School Activities 83. Section 2.6.3 provides that the LRSD shall provide transportation to students. . . to allow those students to participate in after school activities . [CX. 870, p. 29] The 2000 Report does not address this provision. 84. The 2001 Report simply recites the number of extracurricular activity Rins per day for high and middle schools with a notation that no eligible student has been denied, [p. 29] The District does not define eligible. 85. The witnesses who addressed the transportation obligation included Ramona Horton [Tr, at 312-313], Justin Mercer [Tr. at 358], Pam Mercer [ Tr. at 450]\n[Tr. at 532 (J. Carter)] [Tr. at 75 (C. Norman)] They testified that the District did not provide transportation for a number of activities. G. The Obligations to Ensure that There is No Racial Discrimination In the Provision of Guidance and Counseling Services and (H.) To Provide More Equirt in Academic Honors. .Awards and Scholarships 86. The 2000 Report (at pages 81-82) promises that the LRSD will implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there will be no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. The report promises at page 81 to continue monitoring of school district equity issues with respect to honors, aw'ards and scholarships. The report states that A:^JOSHUA.OPP -34-I J continued strategies are addressed to increase the number of African Americans who pursue more rigorous academic course work and receive scholarships.\" 87. The report further refers to Section 2.11.1 by referring back to 2.11 88. The 2001 Report (at p. 160) simply recites the scholarships awarded at the high schools by number, at p. 160 and by dollar value, at p. 161. The District does not recite any activities or programs that it engaged in to meet the provisions of Section 2.11 at page 160, other than a survey which purported represented the opinion of 94% of all parents that help and guidance was available to their child.\" There has been no dispute that counseling sendees were available for they have always been. The District did not present any testimony regarding how it planned to modify the delivery of policies or procedures as provided by, and to meet the objectives of, Section 2.11. Nor did it delineate the work that, it did in an effort to provide more equity for African .American students in academic honors, awards and scholarships. Indeed, the District did not present the data which delineated scholarships awarded to African American and non .African American students on an academic basis. 89. With respect to honor graduates, .African American students constitute 66% of the high school enrollment. In 1999-2000, they received 32% of the honors. The only strategy' to improve the number of .African .American honor graduates is to have them elect to take more .AP courses. 90. The Hall High School counselor, Ms. Pat Watson, agreed that counseling sendees were utilized in the 1999-2000 school term in an attempt by school district administrators to place two white students ahead of a Black student with respect to the schools valedictorian position. [Tr. at 115-119 (Watson)] Joshua was instrumental in preventing this intentional racial practice from occurring. A:'JOSHVA.OPP1 91, Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent responsible for counseling services, made no findings regarding student access to higher education opportunity being improved by either guidance services or by ,AP courses. He did not review or monitor the annual guidance counselors reports. [Tr. at 148-49] 92. Ramona Horton, an involved parent in the District, testified, that her children did not get help from the counselors. [Tr. at 306] In her opinion, the deliver^' of counseling services was poor. [Tr. at 314] She did not participate in any survey regarding the delivery of counseling services in the District. [Tr. at 314] 93. Crystal Mercer stated that she received no assistance from her counselors nor any encouragement about enrolling or remaining, after being enrolled., in AP classes. [Tr. at 319-320, 324] 94. Justin Mercer stated his counselor suggested that he should not take AP Economics rvhen he wanted to improve his GPA [Tr. at 352] His counselor told, him that he could, not take AP Economics because there was no teacher qualified to teach it and there was not enough student interest for it. He later learned that white students had not been similarly discouraged when he received his next class assignment from a white friend had .AP Economics on his schedule. [Tr. at 352-353] Mercers counselor told him that he could not enroll in .AP Physics because he did not meet the requirements to take it. [Tr. at 354] Mercers counselor was white. [Tr. at 371] 95. The counselors at. Central told Justin Mercer when he arrived at Central that he should not take AP and Pre-AP courses. The reason given was that he had been in regular courses in Junior High School and that the teachers w^ere familiar with his transcript. [Tr. at 377] Mercers counselor also discouraged him from taking AP Physics II because of his background. [Tr. at 384] A:^JOSHUA.OPP -36-I 96. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor informed him that one of his teachers was prejudiced, [Tr. at 403] 97. D.J. Thames, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor did not assist him in getting into the College of Wooster. [Tr. at 418] Thames counselor discouraged him from taking zAP English. [Tr. at 426] His counselor also advised him to drop Ms. Pickering after having been in her class. [Tr. at 429] 98. During the 1998-99 and 99-2000 school years, McClellan had larger numbers of African American students than Central High School enrolled in AP courses. Between the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years, McClellan had the same number of black honors graduates as Central. The dollar value of scholarships for African American students was more than twice as much as the Central students. During the 1999-2000 school year, when the African American numbers favored Central by 2 to 1, the scholarship amounts favored Centra) students by more than 5 to 1. This reflects the second class status/perception of McClellan .High School in comparison to Central. CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 98a. When African American parents filed the class action lawsuit seeking to desegregate the Little Rock public schools, the school district offered Central High School as the point at which to begin a plan of gradual school desegregation. Aarov v. Coover, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark 1956). The plan was designed to delay the process for as long as possible pursuant to Brown v Board of Education o f Topeka. Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, (1954), and to involve as few minority race students as possible. The Court of Appeals affirmed 243 F2d 361 (8 Cir. 1956). The District was select in choosing the first 17 Black students chosen by the District to attend Central, only nine (the Little Rock Nine) of whom braved the adversity of the opposition and attended Central. A5JOSHUA.OPP -37-1 I 98b, In 1972, fifteen years after Central High School had become a symbol of public resistance to the principle of school desegregation, Michael Faucette, an African .American began his high school education at the school. He completed grades 10 through 12 at the school and graduated in 1975. During his tenure, students were ability grouped for academic purposes into three tracks. There were other academic groupings as well. Michael Faucette was placed in track one, the track for those students said to be the strongest academically.[Tr. at 166 (Facuette}] 99. During Michael Faucettes three years in the school, he was the only .African American male student in his classes. He was often the only African .American in his class. The total enrollment of the school at that time was approximately 65 to 70% African American. There were only eight black faculty members in Central during the period of Michael Faucettes attendance at the school. he had only one black teacher during his three years. There was only one black cheerleader durin\nig Faucettes attendance at Central. [Tr. at 166-67, 204-05 (Faucette)] 100. The school system did not recognize the academic achievements of its black, high school graduates in this period. .After graduating from Central High School, Mr. Faucette entered the University of California at Berkeley. .After one of his classes, during his freshman year, his professor told Faucette it was an honor to have a student in his class who had earned a test score as high as Mr. Faucette had earned on one standardized test. No one from Central High School or the LRSD had complimented Faucette on this achievement prior to his leaving the District, [Tr. at 167-68 (Faucette)] 101. During the course of his post-secondary education, Michael Faucette earned two Bachelors degrees, a Masters degree, and a PhD. He taught at the college level at the University of Washington and the University of Georgia. \\ATiile at the University of Washington, he developed a A:^JOSHUA.OPP -38-1 I program designed to help high school students succeed at the higher education level. [ Tr. at 169 (Faucette)] 102. By 1998, the 40* anniversary of the Central High School \"crisis, Dr. Faucette had determined to return to Little Rock to teach in the community in which he had secured his education. As part of his application process in the LRSD, he visited Central High School in February, 1998. The then principal, Rudolph Howard, accompanied Dr. Faucette to visits to four classrooms in the school. He visited two AP classes in which the students were all white, he visited an honors class in which the students were two-thirds white\nhe visited a regular English class in which there were, in contrast, only two white students. The three all white or identifiably white classes had white teachers and the class with only two white students had an .African .American teacher. Dr. Faucette commented to Principal Howard about the makeup of the classes., observing that the presence of two-all white classes surprised him\nMr. Howard did not reply. [Tr. 169-71 (Faucette)] 103. Dr. Faucette began teaching at Central High School at the start of the 1998-99 school year. He was assigned to teach one remedial class and regular English sections in the 12* grade. In that year, in the 12* grade, there were nineteen (19) English sections, some advanced placement sections, some regular English sections and two sections with a remedial designation. Dr. Faucette obserx'ed that the advanced classes - tracks - were composed almost entirely of white students and. as to location, concentrated on the third floor of the building. In contrast, the regular and remedial sections - tracks - were primarily black in student makeup and located on the second floor of the building. This pattern of the racial make-up of the various categories of sections and their locations continued virtually unchanged during the next two school years (the second and third years of the RevisedPlan). [Tr. at 172-/5, (Faucette)] Other evidence revealed that there were few black students A:^JOSHUA.OPP -39-1 in advanced placement classes during the period of the plan. [Tr, at 303 (R. Horton)\nat 319 (C. Mercer)\nat 330 (J. Mercer)] 104, During the three years of the Plan, the makeup of the cadre of English teachers in the school was eight (8) white and eight (8) .African American persons, however, African .American teachers taught no (98-99) or few (99-00, 00-01) advanced sections of English in the school as shown by the following chart: Total Eng sections Total advanced secs 98-99 99-00 2000-01 69 88 84 36 37 Adv sec taught by Blacks 4 0 9 English teachers 8W/8B 8W/8B 8w/8B [Tr, 175-76, 178, 179-80, (Faucette)] 105. Dr. Faucette, a teacher whose excellent qualifications were obvious, did not teach even one advanced section of English during the three years of the Plan, despite the fact that these sections numbered 23 to 37 during this period. This is not explained by any neutral factor, (a) Dr. Faucette taught. 12\" grade sections in 1998-99\n9\" grade sections in 1999-00\nand 12 sections again in 2000- 01. He was assigned to the respective grade levels by the English department chairperson and the Central High School principal, (b) It is the practice in the LRSD for principals to assign teachers to particular subject areas. [Tr. at 90 (C. Norman)\nat 512 (J. Carter) ] (c) When there was a vacancy in a tenth grade Pre-AP English course at the start of the 1999-2000 school year at Centra! High School, the administration initially assigned a new white teacher to this position rather than assigning one ofthe experienced black staff members. [Tr. at 180 (Faucette)] A:'JOSHUA.OPP -40-I I 106. During Dr. Faucette's first three years of teaching at Central High School which corresponded with the three years of the Revised Plan, there were a total of ten black English teachers in the school (taking account of turnover). Only two of these ten black faculty members taught any advanced sections of English during the period of the Plan. [Tr. at 180 (Faucette)] [This communicates the idea to students and staff alike that Central has racial staff assignment criteria and practices, just as it has for students.] 107. The virtual nonexistence of African American faculty in advanced placement classes was a barrier to the participation of African American students in these programs. See Section 2.6 (... .ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African .Americans in advanced placement courses...). When Dr. Faucette attended, with the encouragement of the school system, a workshop on advanced placement classes, the program staff emphasized that having more teachers of color in advanced placement classes was important to attracting more students of color to these classes. [Tr. at 184(Faucette)] Similarly, Dr. Lesley testified that when LRSD staff considered the problem of low African American participation in advanced placement classes, the lack of African American faculty was recognized to be a barrier to the participation of African .American students in those programs. [ Tr. at 672] 108. The Central High School administration conducted monthly school-wide faculty meetings during the three years of the plan, which Dr. Faucette attended. There was no discussion during those meetings regarding activities to implement Sections 2.6, 2.6.1, and 2.6.2 of the Revised Plan. [Tr. at 186 (Faucette)] During the three years of the Plan, two white females served at various times as the chair of the schools English department. They did not organize any activity designed to implement Sections 2.6. 2.6.1, and 2.6.2 of the Plan. [Tr. at 187-88 (Faucette)] No individual A:''JOSHUA.OPP I 1 came to Central High School from the Systems central ofEceto conduct activities to implement these sections of rhe Plan. [Tr. at 189 (Faucette)] 109. The inaction described in the previous paragraph was in the face of obvious need for a proactive response to the terms of the Plan. As indicated, supra, few or no black staff were assigned to teach sections of advanced students and students were segregated within the school by the tracks or levels of their sections and, therefore, by race. In addition, as evidenced by the Systems data , there was very limited participation of African American students in .AP classes in Central High School. See [Tr. at 705-06 (Lesley)] System Report, Court Exhibit 705, revealed that there were more black .AP students in McClellan High School during 1998-2000. Tliis is so despite the fact that McClellan had fewer black students than Central, and the fact that Centrals black students were, on the average, somewhat stronger academically as evidenced by SAT9 test results for grade 10 for the three years of the Plan. [See Court Ex. 741] 110. Guidance counselors and teachers at Central High School were deficient in terms of encouraging qualified African American students to enroll in AP courses. [Tr. at 207-08 (M. Faucette)\nTr. at 319 (C. Mercer)\nTr at 330-334, 352-354 (J. Mercer)]\nTr. at 299, 307-8,314 (R. Horton)] 111. Tarick Horton entered Central High School during the first year of the Revised Plan, after earning As and Bs in his acadmic subjects and some SAT 9 test scores in the 98' and 99' percentiles. The adverse atmosphere in Pre-AP and .AP classes for black students at Central is evidenced by the fact that Tarick experienced a decline in his academic coursework making Cs, Ds and Fs while enrolled in. Pre-AP and .AP courses. Despite parental involvement and intervention by the administration and counselors, his grades continued to decline in these courses. Tarick went from -4: 'JOSHUA.OPP -42-4 an honor roll student while in elementary' and middle school to a student who graduated with marginal grades. [Tr, at 289-310 (R. Horton)] If Tarick could not be academically successful at Central with grades and test scores more typical of white students, clearly the Districr could not in good faith expect less accomplished Black students to be. 112. Dr. Faucette testified that he received several Black Pre-AP students who move from Pre-AP classes to his regular class during the year. He found these students to be capable of good academic work and by implication that they should have been encouraged to remain in AP. [Tr. at 191-192 (Faucette)] 113. The record contains much evidence of the adverse atmosphere in .AP classes for African American students beyond the disproportionate white faculty in AP courses (a) Falon Horton. Falon Horton, Ramona Hortons daughter., was a cheerleader. .An AP teacher embarassed her by referring to her as a cheerleader when she answered questions. Falons mother complained to Principal Howard who provided no remedy for the situation. [Tr. at 312 (R. Horton)] (b) Tarick Horton. A teacher reported to Tarick Hortons mother that his failing grades were due to missing assignments. Ms. Horton provided personally for submission of the missing work but was told that the work was still missing and he received a failing grade in the class. At times the staff reported that they had lost Taricks homework. In addition, Ms. Horton complained to Principal Howard about Taricks Pre-AP History' teacher is removing Tarick from her class because he raised his hand to ask a question. [Tr. at 291-93 (R. Horton)] Howard took no action regarding the matter and Secondary Assistant Lacey could not believe that would happen. [Tr. at A:JOSffUA.OPP -43-I 804 (Lacey)] (c) Crystal Mercer. In an AP .An History class, a white teacher showed favoritism to white female students, who knew her son, by inviting them to her house to study for scheduled tests. Crystal Mercer did not receive an invitation, which was extended the white students during class time. [Tr. at 321-22 (C. Mercer)] (d) Justin Mercer. In an .AP English class, a white teacher requested the class to choose a discussion leader for a discussion of a book by Ralph Waldo Emerson. The class selected Justin. Mercer. The teacher then ignored the selection by the class and chose a. wliite female student to be the discussion leader. The next day the teacher simply did. not provide for the class to select a discussion leader [Tr. at 336-37 (J. Mercer)] During the discussion about Emerson, Justin Mercer stated that Emersons position was contradictory. The teacher excluded Justin from the class for his comment involving the subject matter of the lesson. His mother had to intervene with the school Principal Howard in order to gain Justins re-entiy into the class. [Tr. at 337- 38 (J. Mercer)] 114. Dr. Faucette participated in. an effort to provide an enrichment opportunity for the Central High School student body by providing an internationally renowned authority from Ireland as speaker at a school-wide assembly about Robert Louis Stevenson. However, when the program occurred, only .AP English students were at first permitted to attend. WTien the number of students in attendance was embarrassingly small, additional students were invited. However, the second group of invitees was limited to .AP Science students who were almost all white. The result w'as that regular English students and the membership of Dr. Faucettes Creative Writing club, which was racially A:'JOSHUA.OPP -44-t 1 diverse, were excluded from the program unless the club members also happened to be in AP programs. [Tr. at 192-96, 229-30 (Faucette)] 115. The assembly incident had a racial impact. AP students who were admitted were disproportionately white\nthe regular English sections and the Creative Writing club which were well represented by black students, were excluded. The incident also evidenced the practice in the school of treating .AP students as elite and thus superior and other students as inferior and of lesser importance. 116 Dr. Faucette complained to the English department chairperson, a white female, about the exclusionary' impact and method for admitting students to the assembly and the message that the exclusion evidenced. He received no response from her. Principal Howard, however, chastised Dr. Faucette for his written protest to the English department chair, telling him that he had no right to upset other teachers. [Tr. at 194-95 (Faucette)] Howards action recognized and reinforced the superior status of white teachers. [CX. 763] 117. The Central High School guidance staff also handled enrollment for Dr. Faucettes Creative writing course in a manner that advantaged white students and disadvantaged African .American students. He found that the staff assigned to the course white students who had not followed the established procedure for seeking admission, wdth the result that AA student who had followed the procedure, were excluded. [Tr. at 196-97 (Faucette)] 118. There were many extracurricular and co-curricular activities at Central High School which were racially identifiable, taking into account the overall racial makeup of the school. Disproportionately white activities included, inter alia, quiz bowl, mock trial, future problem solvers. the cheerleaders, the swim team, tennis, soccer, the Yearbook staff, orchestra, and the schools A:^JOSHUA.OPP -45-t I Newspaper staff. [Tr. at 199-200, 203, (Faucette)\nTr. at 261-62 (Mitchell)\nTr. at 356-58, 360, 362, 364 (J. Mercer)] Zero numbers and relative low numbers over time of-Mrican American participants in programs at Central surely convey an impression to students about race. It is likewise with one race programs in which Black students dominate. See testimony of J. Mercer [Tr. at 396-98] who was referred by the white student council sponsor to a Black oriented program in order to achieve a desegregated activity purpose. 119 Crystal and Justin Mercer each sought to panicipatein the mock trial program at Central High School, an activity which has been historically populated by white students. They each were met by unwelcoming conduct by the white sponsors of the program. [Tr. at 322-23 (C. Mercer), Tr. at 386-88 (J. Mercer)] This response was at odds with Section 2.6 of the Plan calling for actions to promote participation by qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities and LRSD Regulation JJ-R (Para. 5) addressing: strategies [in each school] ... to encourage participation in cocurricular activities. [CX 719] See also Tr. at 361-62 (J. Mercer) (discouraged from participating in debate program). 120. The content of the yearbook illustrated a problem which resulting from its staff being overwhelmingly white. Its content tended to focus on the activities of white to the exclusion of black. students who were the majority of the Central's enrollment. [Tr. at 203 (Faucette)] 121. There was considerable evidence of barriers (Section 2.6) which contributed to the identifiably white makeup of extracurricular and co-curricular activities at Central. These included finances (the considerable cost of cheerleader camp, (see Tr. at 312-313 (R. Horton) Tr. at 790 (Lacey)]), a fee to participate in the troubadors, the cost of purchasing an instrument for the orchestra,), the lack of transportation for an early morning activity (orchestra), the lack of A:'JOSHUA.OPP -46-t t transportation for debate team comperirions, the lack of transponation for cheerleaders to travel to games, and the tradition of an activity long being disproponionately populated by white (yearbook staff). [Tr. at 200-01, 203-06 (Faucette)\nTr. at 312-13(R. Honon)\nTr. at 313, 358 (J. Mercer)] 122. The tradition at Central has been for the football homecoming queen to be a white female and the basketball homecoming queen to be a black female. [Tr. at 205-06 (Faucette)] We note that basketball is a Black sport at Central while football is mixed. 123. Despite the provisions ofthe Revised Plan (Sections 2.1 and 2.6), the problem of racially identifiable activities was not a subject of discussion at any of the monthly faculty meetings at the school. (Tr. at 199-00, 207(Faucette)] This inaction was contrary' to District Regulation JJ-R, which the LRSD cited as evidence ofirs substantial compliance. [(CX 719, March 2000 Report at 17] The regulation reads in paragraph ten:  When racial disparities are identified in co-curricular activities, the principal will work with staff to develop a plan for improvement, where appropriate. [CX 719, Reg. JJ-R] 124. No focused effort to address barriers to participation in extracurricular activities at Central High School is shown by the March 2000 Report [p. 17], the March 2001 Report 9[p. 27-29], or the LRSDs testimony. The LRSD did not call former Principal Howard to show such an effort (or to rebut any evidence.) 125. Another indication of the favoritism directed to white persons within Central High School involves the treatment of white teachers compared to black teachers. As indicated, white teachers are assigned disproportionately to teach advanced sections. White teachers favored position is also evidenced by' the assignment of preparation time, and the principals approval or condonation in matters such as leaving the building, being absent from class without a substitute, nap time, being A:''JOSHUA.OPP -47-t J late to class, and dealing with personal matters during the school day [Tr. at 210 (Faucette)] 126. Dr. Faucettes Creative Writing class produced a magazine, The Labyrinth, which won a national award. Thereafter, the LRSD gifted programs office claimed credit for the award in its newsletter without mentioning him. [Tr. at 212 (Faucette)] This insensitivity to a black faculty member was akin to the situation in 1975 when Faucette had to wait until he left the school system to receive a plaudit for his exemplar} standardized test score. [This also diminishes the accomplishments of regular class students] See also Tr. at 234 (Faucette\nhis classroom which was used for the large, racially diverse Creative Writing club was taken by the administration for use by another class without notice to him). 127. During his Junior year, Justin Mercer wanted to start a club that promoted diversity because one could observe at Central segregation between whites and blacks not only in classes but also during lunch and other activities. The club would have leaders from different races. Mercer approached Principal Howard about starting an organization. Mr. Howard replied that a sponsor would be needed and suggested a white male who was the sponsor of the Student Council. The individual responded that it would not be good for the student council to take on the burden of having another organization with it. The sponsor suggested that Mercer approach the Black Culture Society, an idea which Mercer rejected because that organization promoted separation to some extent, the problem, to which he was trying to combat. At this point, Justin Mercer returned to Principal Howard but the second approach did not yield a successful outcome to his efforts either. Justin viewed his idea, an excellent one given the extent to which Central, at the turn of the century. mirrored the segregated and discriminator}' patterns of the past, as having been shot down. [Tr. at 396-98 (J. Mercer)] A:-'JOSHUA.OPP -48-t I 127a. Testimony of Dr. Terrence Roberts 1) Section 2.1.1. of the Revised Plan called for the retaining of an expert, in part to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely effect African- American students (emphasis added). However, the LRSD utilized Dr. Roberts almost exclusively to comment on plans that have been develop, to offer suggestions, change, that sort of thing. [Tr, at 620 (Roberts)] 2) In the course of his many contacts with the system, Dr. Roberts concluded that the objective of LRSD efforts was not helping the intended beneficiaries of the Plan, but to be released from Court supervision. And it seemed to be a matter of whatever it took to achieve that goal, and it didnt really have an3n:hing to do with the students or the plan. [Tr. at 629 (Roberts)] 3) Compliance with Section 2.1 of the Revised Plan requires consideration of attitudes toward people who are diflferent [Tr. at 631 (Roberts)], here the .African American students, and whether there are peer relationship(s) between . . [students], and [whether] you have a relationship between all those students and the teacher where there are no differentiations based on race. [Tr. at 632 (Roberts)] the evidence reveals many attitudinal problems and differentiations based on race, in the context of advanced courses, extracurricular activities and guidance services. 128. Dr. Faucette testified that Central enjoys a reputation of being a beacon, being a A:-JOSHUA.OPP -49-t standard bearer for integration and serving all students but thats not the truth within the walls of our school. [Tr. at 208-09 ] The basis of this conclusion is apparenx from his testimony summarized above. 129. Justin Mercer gave the following parallel testimony [ Tr. at 365-66]: Q- Now, Mt. Mercer, did yon have cm occasion to form an opinion as whether Central was one or h-vo schools? A. Yes. Personal observation, experience, and yon Icnow, just being there period, you can see that Central is two schools in itself. You have an upper echelon school comprised of mostly AP classes and majority where it is kind of elitist. And you have another Central, where it is relegated to majority blacks and. minorities, where the teachers don 't seem to have a good vibe with the students, and it is not really about the education aspect. Its two different schools, like a term that some of my friends use, . . . you have Central. College and Central. High School. The AP students are like, you are in Central. College and its rigorous, and it. is basically majority white. And you have Central High School, where it is play, not necessarily fun, but its not really an. education. \" [See also CX. 789] 130. In terms of overall, compliance with the Plan, the seriousness of the compliance problems at Central is of heightened or significance because it has come to be known as the flagship school for the District. [Tr. at 612 (Daughtery)] GOOD FAITH AGAIN 131. The Good Faith ofthe District is placed into perspective by the above findings. The failings of the school district began with the Districts conscious effort to develop compliance activities without the legitimate involvement of the Joshua Intervenors or with the experts rather the District sought to present a posture of technical compliance with plan provisions. [Roberts, Tr. at 49, supra. 132. The lack of good faith is further shown by the District Plan to reinforce rather than A:'JOSHUA.OPP -50-t I dismantle programs which have disparate racial effect, by presenting programs that it did not intend to implement, by changing the data that it promised to present, (recall use of proficient rather advanced and aggregated rather than disaggregated data), by passing the buck to lower level administrators, by promising serious evaluations similar to the ESL evaluation and not performing them, by falsifying the existence of evaluation reports, by misrepresenting the role of ODM in preparing reports, and by creating programs which it knew had means tests associated with them which had disparate racial impact 133. The staff recognized the many barriers to assignment and participation of qualified African American students in activities and AP courses but did not develop a plan at the district level by which to address those barriers.\" 134. Bad faith involves misrepresentation and deceit which are evident in this case. (See facts states above) The result ofthe Districts implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan has been to effectively reintroduce freedom of Choice and thus racially segregated classroom assignment practices in such a way as to ensure that racially identifiable tracts will exist for years to come in this District. The original resistence of LR reflected by prolonged delay which involves as The barriers include, inter alia, a. (1) too few teachers of color, (2) insufficient backgrounds of,African American students for them to be successful in AP classes, (3) no scholarship monies for University Studies pupils\n(4) lack of parental understanding of advantages of AP class participation and not all AP classes being offered at each school. (Testimony ofLesley, Tr. 672, 695, 728, 735, 736, 732, 747)\nb. (1) relatively low achievement of African American [ Tr. at 51-52 (Norman)\nTr. at 472, 490, 492, 493, 496, 498-99, 512, 524 (Carter)]\n(2) failure to follow through on the International Baccalaureate Programme [r. At 529-30 (Carter)], (3) elimination of SECME [Tr. at 104 (Watson)], and (4) hostility of sponsors for racially inclusive clubs and activities [Tr. at 492 (Carter), Tr. at 57, 70 (Norman)\nTr. at 111-112 (Watson)] .4: JOSHUA.OPP -51-t I few .African .Ajuerican students as possible is continued. The idea of racial superiority and racial inferiority remain alive in the manner in which the District has implemented the 1998 agreement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan contemplated is valid when the terms and expectations are mutually understood. There is no showing that the parties mutually understood the terms of the Plan with respect to the panicipation of Joshuas involvement in the developmem of policies, programs and procedures on the front end or of the role of the experts regarding that subject. This material misunderstanding led the parties unnecessarily to their adversary status unless it can be determined that the decisions to exclude Joshua from the process were intentional and thus in bad faith. 2. Bad faith is a basis for reviewing and for rejecting facts presented in support\nof compliance. Good faith takes into account the Districts cooperation and conduct in its interactions with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the Court and the parties. Good faith also is to be measured by the Districts instituting practices which the District reasonably should have known would result in racial impact, such as programs where means tests had to be met in order for student participation to occur. Good faith is contradicted where raising the bar of student achievement doesnot fully take into account the disparate circumstances ofthe majority group whose educational attainments lag far behind those of their minority counterparts. Good faith is absent when programs are promised and represented as occurring when in fact they are not being delivered nor are they occurring. Good faith is measured by the support - scaffolding, - essential to African American success in .AP courses which the District has not provided. It is measured by competent, timely written annual evaluations of all programs which it committed to perform and make use of in AyJOSHUA.OPP -52-t * The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Good faith is measured funher by an analysis of whether planned programs or remedy reinstitute and/or reinforce practices which tend to segregate rather than integrate programs and activities in the LRSD schools. Good faith recognizes the import of the law of the case concept which includes the desegregation objective of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. For the schools which are undeniably racially identifiable, good faith requires that they be provided the necessary support to enable them to provide their students with equal educational opportunities, despite their racial composition, as contemplated by Brown v Board of Education, supra. The text of the relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan involved in the current hearing, rather than constitutional standards, provides the benchmark for determining whether the Court, should terminate its involvement regarding these sections. In Sections . . . of the Revised. Plan, the LRSD voluntarily assumed obligations which require adequate implementation of the identified activity, independent of the intent of the representative(s) of the LRSD involved. The performance of the LRSD with regard to extracurricular activities (Section 2.6) did not approach substantial compliance. Rather, the evidence shows default\nthere w^as a shirking or ignoring of the obligations assumed in Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan, as reinforced in th epolicies adopted by the School Board and the creation of the Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee and the specifying of its duties. The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the notion that a person can not be found to be discriminated against his/her own minority group. Each of the two Court Opinions in support of the judgment in the case recognize that a person functioning in a discriminatory context may A:'JOSHUA.OPP -53-* judgmem in the case recognize that a person functioning in a discriminatory context may accommodate himself or herself to it. Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 499-500, 503-04 (1977.) Therefore, the presence of an African American, principal at Central High School in recent years is of no moment in view of Intervenors' evidence, largely unrebutted, regarding that school. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the petition of the LRSD to be declared unitary and therefore released from Court supervision shall be and is hereby denied. Ui kobert Pressman,* Mass Bar No. 405900 A 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 / A.JOSffCM.OP? Respectfullv submitted? 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) 'kickey Hie] I / Attorney^ L\n.aw Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207-6358 -54- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax arid U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this /%:^day of 2002: Mr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 A T' Jbhn W, Walker A .4.CCSffC-i.(W -55-CtA.Cu/t^^ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Q'f: \\i\\/ i Q 2SU2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR plS^ts^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 1 9 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE RESPONSE The Joshua Intervenors respectfolly request an extension until August 26, 2002 to file their Proposed Findings of Fact and Argument in Opposition to the LRSDs Request for Unitary Status Regarding the Plan Sections addressed in the hearings conducted from July 22 to July 24,2002. The grounds for this motion are as follows: 1) Under the schedule established by the Court, the parties had from July 25,2002 until August 19, 2002 (26 days) to file their responses. 2) The Joshua Intervenors did not receive the transcript of the hearing until the 13'*' day of this period, on August 6,2002, at approximately 5:30 p.m. The transcript contains almost all of the evidence offered during the hearings. 3) In view of the timing of receipt of the transcript, additional time is necessary to address the issues presented in this matter, issues of the highest importance for the City of Little Rock and its residents. 4) The requested extension would cause no apparent harm to the LRSD and theDistricts counsel have stated that they do not object to the Courts granting the requested extension. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that tire Court extend the time for their submission in this matter until not later than August 26, 2002. 7 Respectfully submitted, / // C' Robert Pressm^, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Joflh'W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 / z  ,4ohn w. walker, p.a. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) 1 ! rCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,2002: I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sentj?y fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this 2^day of \nMr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I y // 7./ Joj0''W. Walker i 4C\u0026lt;- RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2002 FILED S. DISTRICT COUI U.COURT OFRCEOF desegregation monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 1 9 2002 JAMES By: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Let al DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al INTERVENORS ORDER Joshuas motion for an extension of time to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (filed today, August 16) is denied. While a short post-trial brief is certainly acceptable, I did not ask the parties for briefs. So that the preparation of a brief will not interfere with the timely filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the brief can be filed by 11:00 a.m. on Monday, August 26, 2002. I feel certain that I made it quite clear, that absent highly unusual circumstances, the August 19 deadline would not be extended. In fact, I believe I backed up the deadline from 5:00 p.m. on August 19 to 11:00 a.m. I hate to ruin this weekend for counsel, but this is my ruling-request denied, except as it pertains to a post-trial brief. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16\"' day of August, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WiTH/RULE 53 AND/OR 79 FRCP ON 6 6 0filed IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ^tern district wkansa.s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1 9 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. McCO.-.....clerk ----------------PLAINTIFF____ Dtp ClERK V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 0 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Introduction. The issue before the Court is whether the Little Rock School District ( LRSD ) has substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (Revised Plan) and should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. This Court approved the Revised Plan on April 10,1998 on the joint motion ofthe LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. Section 11 ofthe Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion ofthe 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with reg^d to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has subst^tially complied with Its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release. Willi llo UUllKttVlVllO ovv XVA W1 I* i X 'DCnc LRSD shall issue a report on March 15,2001 indicating the state of LRSD s comphX S thilevised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance T/*_______*... T \"DCT^c tnft anOV bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSDs compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections and bore the burden of proof. See Docket No. 3447. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan.Accordingly, the LRSD is hereby granted unitary status and released from federal court supervision. n. History. A. 1954 Through 1972. On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Coopgr, 156 F. Supp. 220, 222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v, Aaron. 358 U.S. 1, 9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded. In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 369 F.2d 661 (Sth Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSDs good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County. 391 U.S. 430,439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns within Little Rock, however, a number of racially identifiable 2schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Clark. 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 465 F.2d. 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. B. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 by way of voluntary periodic adjustments of attendance zones. The district court in ClaA noted that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Clark v. Little Rock School District. Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 584 F. Supp. 328, 335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See LRSD V. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 3In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, \"[tjhey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city.... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Austin Study, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Austin Study, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Austin Study, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26,1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_309","title":"Compliance court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-08/2002-09"],"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--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/309"],"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\nreceived u.. SEP 1 3 2002 DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC/it\n^ 'LEfik  EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF AO 72A V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION I I DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AO72A I. n. m. IV. INDEX Introduction Page .. 1 The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation In Pulaski County A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. 1956 Through 1973 ......................................................... 1973 Through 1982 ..................................................... Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief........... The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans 11 11 13 16 20 LRSDs Implementation Of Its Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And 1995 ......................................................................................................................... Joshuas Request For An Interim Award Of Attorneys Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement............................................ LRSDs First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction ............................. The Perplexing Final Resolution Of Joshuas Request For Still More Attorneys Fees From LRSD............................................................................... Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan.................... LRSDs Implementation Of Its Obligations Under The Revised Plan 24 33 36 38 45 46 LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan 50 Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan A. B C. D. E. F. G. H. I. LRSDs Obligation Of Good Faith ......................... LRSDs Obligations Regarding Student Discipline 52 55 55 LRSDs Obligations To Improve And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students ............................................................. LRSDs Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors............................................... LRSDs Obligations To Develop Remedies, Where Appropriate, For Racial Disparities In Programs And Activities............................................................. Procedure For Raising Compliance Issues................................................. Duration Of Revised Plan ..................................... Procedure For Seeking Unitary Status............................................................... Effect Of LRSDs Failure To Meet Specific Goals In The Revised Plan Controlling Principles Of Law A. B. C. D. E. The Evolving Concept of Unitary Status............................ Applicable Standard For Determining If LRSD Is Unitary Burden Of Proof...................................................................... Meaning Of Substantial Compliance............................... 56 56 57 57 59 59 60 60 60 69 72 75 The Metaphysics Of Using The Achievement Gap As A Factor In Deciding Unitary Status....................................................................................................... 77 -i-AO72A V. VI. vn. vni. Findings Of Fact A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Good Faith...................................................... Student Discipline ........................................ Extracurricular Activities............................. Advanced Placement Courses........... Promote Participation and Remove Barriers Identify and Encourage ............................... Assist.............................................................. Guidance And Counseling............................ Academic Achievement ................................ Program Assessment/Program Evaluation ., Conclusions Of Law A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Unitary Status................ Burden Of Proof........... Substantial Compliance Good Faith.................... Student Discipline .... Academic Achievement Partial Unitary Status .. Time To Fly.................. Compliance Remedy Conclusion -ii- 85 86 95 114 123 123 132 135 136 138 150 160 160 160 160 161 161 163 165 168 170 173IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF AO72A V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION' I. Introduction^ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On December 12, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, as revised September 28, 1989\nseparate Settlement Plans for the Little Rock School District (LRSD), the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), dated 'It was my good fortune to have The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray, U. S. Magistrate Judge, assigned to this case with me. I would be sorely remiss if I did not acknowledge, here and now, the prodigious effort and talent he has brought to this project. As authors are wont to say, any errors, however, are mine alone. ^As a Bryan Gamer disciple (beginners class), I generally favor putting all substantive legal analysis in the text and citing the supporting cases in footnotes. However, so many issues in this case beg for digressions that I have been unable to resist the temptation to include substantive legal analysis in some of the footnotes.January 31,1989\nand a separate Interdistrict Settlement Plan? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921F.2dl371 (S* Cir. 1990). At that time, both the district court and the Eighth Circuit believed that this historic settlement created the benchmark for the future path of this case, Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d 253,255 (8* Cir. 1991), and a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court. LRSD V. PCSSD, Supp. 1491,1494 (E.D. Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (Sth Cir. 1991). In the years following the Eighth Circuits approval of the parties final settlement of this case, all three Pulaski County school districts implemented their respective Settlement Plans under the supervision of the district court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM).' Subsequently, the district court and Eighth Circuit established guidelines for allowing the parties ^Each of the Settlement Plans for the individual school districts contained their respective desegregation obligations. In addition, the Interdistrict Settlement Plan contained the interdistrict desegregation obligations for all three school districts. These Settlement Plans had been agreed to by the parties and approved by the Court, making them consent decrees. In their pleadings, the parties sometimes refer to these Settlement Plans as desegregation plans. The three individual Settlement Plans for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD, and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan were submitted to the district court for approval during early 1989. However, because they were not approved by the Eighth Circuit until December 12,1990, LRSD V. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8* Cir. 1990), the parties and the district court generally have referred to these settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settlement Plans, and the 1990 Interdistrict Settlement Plan. In contrast, the Eighth Circuit has usually referred to these settlement documents as the 1989 settlement agreement and 1989 settlement plan or plans. Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d253,254 (8* Cir. 1991) (We recognized, however, that the approved plans, which we shall call the 1989 plan or plans, would need some modification because of the passage of time). Regardless of the terminology used, the parties, the district court, and the Eighth Circuit are all referring to the same settlement documents. In the interest of consistency, I will refer to those documents in this opinion as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settlement Plan or Plans, and the 1990 Interdistrict Settlement Plan. 'The Eighth Circuit directed the district court to create and staff the ODM with the personnel it shall deem appropriate to help ensure compliance with all aspects of the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the four separate Settlement Plans. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1388. -2- AO72A to make agreed changes to the details of the Settlement Plans, as long as they did not affect the major substantive commitments to desegregation embodied in those Plans. Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d at 256\nsee also LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491\nLRSD v. PCSSD, F. Supp, 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (8* Cir. 1991). Between 1991 and 1996, LRSD worked toward implementing its desegregation obligations under the settlement documents. On May 1,1992, the district court entered an Order (docket no. 1587) approving certain changes to LRSDs 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. A copy of LRSDs modified settlement plan and interdistrict plan, referred to as LRSDs May 1992 Desegregation Plan and the May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan  were attached to the courts May 1,1992 Order. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that some of the desegregation obligations imposed on LRSD by the settlement documents might never be successfully implemented, regardless of LRSDs best efforts. Accordingly, on September 25, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 2821) in which she invite[d] the parties to modify the parts of the [settlement] plan that are ineffective or unworkable, As a result, in late 1996 and 1997, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) entered into Oil January 3,1984, minor petitioners, comprising a group of African-American public school children enrolled in the three Pulaski County school districts, filed a Petition to Intervene (docket no. 452). The Petitioners sought intervenor status for themselves and the other Black public school children of Pulaski County through their parents and next of friends .... Mrs. Lorene Joshua was the lead named parent and next of friend for her three minor school children. On May 24, 1984, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order (docket no. 565) that, in effect, granted the Petition to Intervene. Thereafter, the district court and the parties began referring to these intervenors simply as Joshua. Because the intervenors represent the group of all African- American school children in the Pulaski County public schools, I will sometimes use the plural pronoun they to refer to Joshua. On occasion, the Eighth Circuit has elected to consider -3- AO72A (RavA/A?) protracted negotiations to modify various aspects ofLRSDs Settlement Plan. These negotiations bore fruit in the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the Revised Plan), which LRSD and Joshua jointly submitted to the district court for approval on January 21, 1998 (docket nos. 3107 and 3136).* On April 10, 1998, the district court entered an Order (docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan, which it viewed as an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between LRSD and Joshua.* Unlike LRSDs 1990 Settlement Plan, as modified by the May 1992 Desegregation Plan, the Revised Plan included a section establishing a specific procedure Joshua to be only the first named intervenor, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, and properly used the singular pronoun she to refer to Joshua. LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8* Cir. 1995). Either pronoun usage is correct, as long as the reader understands how the Court is defining Joshua. ^According to the explicit language of the Revised Plan, it shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in this case and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the LRSD with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28,1989 (Settlement Agreement)\nb. c. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nOrder dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nd. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand, Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. During the hearings on unitary status, the Revised Plan was introduced into evidence as ex 871. in its April 10 Order, the district court concluded, in the alternative, that, even if the Revised Plan was considered to be a modification ofLRSDs May 1992 Desegregation Plan, rather than an entirely new consent decree, it still should be approved under the test for seeking modification of a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). See also LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d at 914\nLRSD, 921 F.2d at 1387. AO72Aand time schedule under which LRSD might achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary 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 Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. (Emphasis added.) Because none of the parties appealed the district courts April 10 Order approving the Revised Plan, it became a final consent decree, which now governs LRSDs desegregation obligations and establishes the path that LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status and release from federal court supervision. On March 15,2001, LRSD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report In most school desegregation cases, a federal courts jurisdiction depends on the existence of constitutional violations by the school district. Once the school district complies with all of its obligations under the Constitution, it achieves unitary status, and the federal courts jurisdiction ends. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. ofEduc., 402 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1971). In Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 435-38 (1968), the Court identified the following areas of a school districts operations that must be carefully examined in determining whether it has successfully converted \"to a unitary system in which racial discrimination [has been] eliminated root and branch: (1) student assignment\n(2) faculty and staff assignment\n(3) transportation\n(4) extracurricular activities\nand (5) facilities. These so-called Green factors establish the floor for a school districts compliance with its constitutional obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in all school desegregation cases, a school districts compliance with the Green factors is a condition precedent to unitary status. Importantly, the Revised Plan required LRSD to comply with not only the Green factors, but also a host of other desegregation obligations that went well beyond the constitutional floor established by the Court in Green. Thus, in this case, the question of unitary status turns on whether LRSD has substantially complied with its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. -5- I AO72A(docket no. 3410),' pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan, seeking an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), which vigorously challenged LRSDs contention that it was entitled to a declaration of unitary status and argued that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with certain of its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. On July 5 and 6, August 1 and 2, and November 19 and 20, 2001, my colleague and predecessor in this case. United States ChiefDistrict Judge Susan Webber Wright, conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their three strongest grounds'' for challenging LRSDs request for unitary status: first, that LRSD had not acted in good faith in implementing its desegregation obligations ( 2.1 of the Revised Plan)\nsecond, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding student discipline ( 2.5 through 2.5.4 of the Revised Plan)\nand third, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students ( 2.7,2.7.1, and 5.1-5.8 of the Revised Plan). In a scheduling conference on December 11,2001, Judge Wright designated the week of = January 28,2002, to hear no more than five additional days of testimony regarding the last three 'During the hearings on unitary status, the Final March 15,2001 Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as CX 870. \"In a telephone conference with counsel on June 29, 2001, Judge Wright made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence (docket no. 3461 at 54-55). -6- A0 72A ! areas of the Revised Plan in which Joshua claimed LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its obligations: advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2 of the Revised Plan)\nextracurricular activities ( 2.6 and 2.6.3 of the Revised Plan)\nand guidance counseling (2.6.1 of the Revised Plan) (docket no. 3597 at 31-37).Judge Wright made it clear that, after she had heard the testimony concerning these last three areas of LRSDs alleged noncompliance, she would decide the question of unitary status. Id. at 36-37. On January 3,2002, after presiding over this case with great perseverance and distinction for eleven years, Judge Wright determined that it was the appropriate time to reassign this case to another judge with minimal disruption to the parties and to allow a smooth transition (docket no. 3569). That same day, the case was assigned to me by random selection (docket no. 3570). On March 15,2002, one year to the day after submitting its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report, LRSD filed a Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status Judge Wright also ruled that Joshua could present non-cumulative evidence regarding: (a) LRSDs lack of good faith in implementing its obligations regarding advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling\nand (b) the ways in which LRSDs failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement courses and guidance counseling adversely impacted the academic achievement of Afncan-American students. InITgSDv. 148 F.3d 956,967(8'Cir. 1998), the Court recognized the expertise Judge Wright had gained during her many years of service in this case: In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Courts interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a formal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. Of course, the five days of evidentiary hearings that Judge Wright had scheduled for the week of January 28,2002, were cancelled. -7- t 1 AO72A(docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief (docket no. 3581). On May 9, 2002,1 entered a fourteen-page Order (docket no. 3598) explaining to the parties my understanding of the current status of the case. Because the passing of the baton is a key factor in any relay race, the May 9 Order noted: Judge Wright, my immediate predecessor in this case, has done an outstanding job of narrowing the issues and establishing a schedule that should allow me to conduct no more than five additional days of evidentiary hearings on the four remaining issues and then be in a position to decide the LRSDs Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status. For that reason, the Court intends to pick up where Judge Wright left off, without disturbing the schedule that was established and agreed to by the parties and the Court during the December 11, 2001 hearing. May 9, 2002 Order at 12 (docket no. 3598) (footnote omitted). In a telephone conference with counsel on May 14, 2002,1 rescheduled for July 22-26, 2002, the last five days of evidentiary hearings on the question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. In an Order (docket no. 3600) entered the next day, I set forth the schedule adopted during the May 14 telephone conference. On May 30,2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3604). On June 7,2002, LRSD filed a Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3607). Dunng the week of July 22,1 completed the evidentiary hearings to develop the facts relevant to the determination of whether LRSD is entitled to a declaration of unitary status. Thus, the record is now complete, and the issue of unitary status is ready for decision. During the last eight months, I have spent many an hour trying to educate myself on the significant rulings and agreements that have shaped the current contours of this twenty-year-old -8- I A0 72A case.5 I have also read a ground-slide load of cases to gain an understanding of the evolution of school desegregation litigation during the last five decades and to grasp the issues a court must resolve in deciding whether a school district has achieved unitary status. 1 have learned that desegregation cases are invariably complex, involve difiicult-to-understand jargon, and frequently generate book-length appellate decisions, with seemingly obligatory concurring and dissenting opinions. Of course, 1 have found none of these discoveries to be surprising. After all, the issue of desegregation goes to both the heart of the Fourteenth Amendments promise of equal protection and the dark soul of what was, in many parts of the country in the 195O's, a de jure segregated public school system that only grudgingly gave ground to integration-after most school districts had exhausted all available means of delay. In 1954, the Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483,495 (1954) (^Brown r}, holding that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place and that segregation of public education is a denial of equal protection of the laws.' Three years later, Little Rock suddenly found itself at 1 the epicenter of this countrys first major school desegregation effort. In early August of 1957, LRSD school officials (including the school board) were prepared to implement a plan to admit a small number of Afiican-American students to Central High School. Arkansass Governor, Orval Faubus, ostensibly supported that plan, which, if This action was filed on November 30,1982, as the last in a long line of desegregation cases, dating back to 1956. See infra, note 18. The pleadings in this case alone now occupy hundreds of feet of file space in the Clerks office. 'The next year, the Court explicitly directed the lower federal courts to accomplish desegregation with all deliberate speed. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U S 294 301 (1955) i^Brown IT}. -9- AO72A /OcM Q/OO\\implemented with the support of the State, may well have led to the peaceful integration of Central. As it turned out, however, just as school started, Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the Little Rock Nine from entering Central.'^ Faubus, who was known as somewhat of a moderate up to that time, shamelessly farmed the flames of racism under the rubric of states rights, interposition, and the like. Thus, Little Rock became the first great legal battleground in the long struggle to desegregate this countrys public school system, a distinction that has left lasting wounds in this community. One can only wonder how the history of school desegregation might have been different if the first southern governor to squarely face the dictates of Brown I had done his plain, sworn constitutional duty. In view of the historical importance of this case, I believe I should review the long and winding path trod by LRSD in carrying out its constitutional duty, under Brown I and its progeny. to rid the Little Rock school system, to the extent practicable, of the vestiges of de jure segregation. Without at least some understanding of that history, it is impossible to appreciate the deep passions this case still stirs in the litigants, lawyers, and judges who have been involved in almost five decades of continuous, unremitting school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. '^Faubus, of course, cited public safety concerns as his reason for mobilizing the National Guard. He claimed secret intelligence reports indicated that dangerous outside agitators were at work in Little Rock, but these reports were never substantiated. In fact, the evidence now available suggests that the white mob which confronted the Little Rock Nine was mobilized by Faubus own demagoguery, rather than by unidentified outside agitators. And, of course, other demagogues of a like mind were quick to pitch in. R. Reed, Faubus: The Life And Times Of An American Prodigal (1997). '^In 1956, the plaintiffs in Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956), filed suit against LRSD to force it to desegregate pursuant to the Courts holding in Brown L In 1964, the plaintiffs filed Clark v. Board ofEduc. of LRSD as a continuation of the desegregation action -10- AO72AII. The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation In Pulaski County A. 1956 Through 1973 hiLRSD V. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. 328,331-32 (E.D. Ark. 1984), the late and distinguished United States District Judge Henry Woods, the first judge to preside over this case, chronicled in great detail the history of desegregation in Pulaski County. In his scholarly decision. Judge Woods described: the operation of LRSD in 1930, when it was a de jure segregated school district operating under the separate but equal doctrine\n the Courts decision in Brown I, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson', the court-ordered implementation of a plan to admit a small number of African-American students to Little Rock Central High School in September of1957 Governor Faubus use of Arkansas National Guard troops at Central to place it off limits to Afiican-American students and the subsequent removal of those troops after the issuance of an injunction by United States District Judge Ronald Davies in Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220 t commenced against LRSD in Aaron v. Cooper. See Judge William Overtons July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order in Clark, a copy of which, marked Exhibit 1, is attached to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). On November 30,1982, LRSD initiated this action against the PCSSD, NLRSD, and the Arkansas Board of Education seeking the consolidation of all three school districts in Pulaski County as the appropriate interdistrict desegregation remedy. Thus, LRSD has been involved continually in federal desegregation litigation for forty-six years. Plessy V. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown I, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). ^^See Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956). As discussed supra at note 18, Aaron was filed in 1956 to force LRSD to desegregate pursuant to the Courts holding in Brown. United States District Judge John E. Miller entered a decree on August 27, 1956, approving LRSDs plan of gradual school integration beginning with senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. The Eighth Circuit subsequently affirmed that decision. Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 (8* Cir. 1957). -11- AO72A(E.D. Ark. 1957)\n^' the nine courageous African-American students entering Central on September 23, 1957, in the face of a large, threatening mob of whites\nand, finally. President Eisenhower dispatching troops to Central to ensure the safety of the African-American students and to enforce Judge Davies desegregation order.^ Judge Woods also traced desegregation plans advanced by LRSD in the decade of 1960 in a good faith effort to provide a solution to continuous litigation and the failure of those plans in the hysterical political atmosphere of that period. LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 334. In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved LRSDs freedom of choice desegregation plan, which remained in effect through the 1968-69 school year. Clark v. Board of Education of LRSD, 369 F.2d 661 (8* Cir. 1966). Significantly, in its decision, the Court noted LRSDs good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Boards making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. 2'ln 1957, the Eighth Circuit assigned Judge Davies, of Fargo, North Dakota, to preside over Aaron. On September 21, 1957, Judge Davies issued an injunction ordering Governor Faubus, the Adjutant General of the State of Arkansas, and Lieutenant Colonel Marion E. Johnson of the Arkansas National Guard, and their officers, agents, and employees to cease and desist obstructing or preventing, by means of the Arkansas National Guard, or otherwise, Negro students, eligible under said plan of school integration to attend the Little Rock Central High School, from attending said school.... Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. at 222. See also Cooper V. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1958). Scenes of angry mobs of white protesters confronting the nine African-American students as they entered Central and, later, troops of the 101  Airborne Division rolling across the Broadway Bridge to restore order in Little Rock are still deeply etched in the minds of many Arkansans. -12- AO72AId. at 666? 23 In Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430,439-40 (1968), the Court held that school districts such as LRSD, which were the product of de jure segregation. could not satisfy their constitutional obligations under freedom of choice plans. Therefore, LRSD formulated a new desegregation plan for the 1969-70 school year that was based on geographic attendance zones. However, because segregated housing patterns created a number of racially identifiable schools under the plan, the Eighth Circuit found it to be unconstitutional. Clark V. Board of Education ofLRSD, 426 F.2d 1035, 1043 (8* Cir. 1970). In the 1971-72 school year, LRSD began crosstown busing to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12. Clark v. Board of Directors ofLRSD, 328 F. Supp. 1205,1209,1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971, rev W in part, 449 F.2d 493 (S* Cir. 1971). The following school year, crosstown busing was used to achieve racial balance in grades 4 and 5. Clark v. Board of Education of LRSD, 465 F.2d 1044, 1046 (8* Cir. 1972). Finally, during the 1972-73 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. I B. Events Leading To Initiation Of This Action On July 9,1982, United States District Judge William R. Overton entered a Memorandum and Order in Clark which contained many of the findings that underpinned LRSDs subsequent ^^Likewise, in Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9, the Supreme Court acknowledged that LRSD was prepared to implement the plan, approved by Judge Miller in Aaron, 156 F. Supp. 220, to gradually integrate senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. However, LRSD was prevented from following that plan by the flagrantly unlawful actions of Governor Faubus, which the Supreme Court noted had not been requested by the school authorities, and [were] entirely unheralded. Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9. -13- AO72Adecision to file this action?\"* In many respects, Judge Overtons decision was a ringing endorsement of LRSD for successfully implementing its school desegregation plan over the last nine years. For example, Judge Overton explicitly found: (1) no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices\n(2) the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation\nand (3) the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolated complaints ofdiscrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that record^ July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 16 (docket no. 3581) (emphasis added).^^ Although Judge Overton found that LRSD was operating as a completely unitary desegregated school system, he made a number of findings that raised serious questions about the future prospects for LRSD remaining an integrated school district. For example. Judge Overton found that: (1) in the years after the desegregation of LRSD elementary schools in 1973- 74, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment 1 ^As indicated previously, a copy of Judge Overtons July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order is attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). ^Eleven years later. Judge Wright, in describing the operation of LRSD in the years before it filed this action, observed that many believed desegregation litigation in the LRSD [had] been brought to a successful conclusion and the Little Rock school system seemed to have entered a period of relative tranquility and complete self-management. See Judge Wrights Statement to LRSD Board of Directors and Counsel on March 19,1993, attached as Exhibit 1 to Joshuas August 1,1996 Memorandum in Opposition to LRSDs Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2730). I I -14- AO72Ain the elementary schools ... and [to a lesser extent] in the upper grades\n^ (2) despite LRSDs efforts to modify student assignment plans to correct the growing disparity in the black-white student ratio in elementary schools, [a]ll of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years\nand (3) by the fall of 1981, LRSD faced a host of problems surrounding the school attendance plan, including a significant disparity in the black-white ratio at the various elementary schools, complaints of black parents that their children were being bused across the city to attend all black classes, and the defeat of the last two millage increase proposals... by the electorate ... [creating] severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 1-6, attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). In an effort to retain and supplement the shrinking pool of white students. Judge Overton approved the Partial K-6 Plan,^ which created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the twelve neighborhood schools were racially balanced, and four were virtually all black. Under the plan. ^*In the fall of 1971, 42% of the students in LRSD were black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased, while the number of white students decreased. In the fall of 1981,76% of elementary students and 55% of high school students were black. See LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 335. In the December 16, 1981 Report prepared by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University, the authors concluded that, if existing trends continued, 90% of the students entering the first grade in LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Stephen F. Austin Report at 19, attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). I ^This was a shorthand reference for LRSDs desegregation plan for children attending kindergarten through the sixth grade. -15- AO72A a/oo\\Booker Junior High School became an intermediate school\na magnet school was to be created west of University Avenue\nand a committee was appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6-11 Finally, Judge Overton noted that LRSD had taken a number of steps to address the problems that confronted it. First, LRSD had commissioned a study and report by a Desegregation Assistance Team at Stephen F. Austin University on its desegregation efforts and the challenges it faced in the future.^ Second, LRSD had begun investigating the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and [had] hired a law firm to pursue that remedy. See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6. C. Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief On November 30,1982, LRSD filed this actiona new case^against PCSSD, NLRSD, the State of Arkansas, and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County School Districts as the most appropriate and effective desegregation remedy for all three school districts. In its Complaint (docket no. 10), LRSD alleged that PCSSD ^Judge Overtons July 9 decision approved LRSDs Partial K-6 plan as a stop gap student assignment plan for elementary grades. The Eighth Circuit later affirmed that decision in Clark V. Board of Educ. of LRSD, 705 F.2d 265 (8 Cir. 1983). As indicated, supra at note 26, this report, entitled Building on a Generation of Accomplishment Maintaining and Strengthening Desegregation in Little Rock (hereinafter referred to as the Austin Report), is attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). Because this action involved claims for relief and remedies that were different from those involved in Clark, it was considered to be a new case and was randomly assigned to the Honorable Henry Woods. -16- AO72A ta^, a\npo\\ Iand NLRSD engaged in a series of intradistrict constitutional violations with interdistrict effects and that the State of Arkansas and Arkansas Department of Education (hereinafter referred to collectively as the State/ADE), through funding and other state action, operated, maintained and/or condoned a racially segregated structure of public education under color of state law. After conducting a trial on the merits of the claims asserted in LRSDs Complaint, Judge Woods entered a Memorandum Opinion setting forth detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law to support his determination that each of the three Defendants had violated the Constitution by creating racial isolation between and among the districts that had caused six specific interdistrict effects. LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 349-51 ?' Judge Woods noted that, at a later date, he would conduct a hearing to take evidence regarding the precise nature of the remedy that should be fashioned to cure the interdistrict effects of substantial interdistrict segregation. Id. at 352-53. During the subsequent remedial hearings, PCSSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts and relied on the development of specialty or magnet schools to attract students from one district to another. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220,1222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1984). NLRSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts, transferred certain geographic areas from PCSSD to LRSD and from LRSD to PCSSD, and depended heavily on the use of majority to minority transfers (M to M transfers) to achieve racial balance. Id. at 1223. Although not advancing a specific plan, Joshua used testimony from Judge Woods made 105 specific findings of fact and drew 14 conclusions of law to support his determination of the issue of liability. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed all of those findings of fact and conclusions of law. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8* Cir. 1985). -17- AO72A (Rev.8/821 two expert witnesses to suggest three options\n(1) altering boundary lines in accordance with the NLRSD plan\n(2) altering boundary lines to transfer other geographic areas among all three districts\nor (3) transferring certain geographic areas to LRSD and having all of the remaining area of PCSSD consolidated with NLRSD. Id. at 1223-24. LRSD advanced a plan that involved the county-wide consolidation of all three school districts. Id. at 1224-25. After considering all of the evidence, Judge Woods concluded that a countywide interdistrict remedy must be utilized to correct the countywide interdistrict violation found to exist and that this is the only manner of placing the victims of this discrimination in the position they would have occupied absent the discrimination. Id. at 1225.^^ Judge Woods also concluded that the State/ADE: (a) failed to discharge its affirmative duty to encourage desegregation, which had an interdistrict effect on LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD\nand (b) had remedial responsibilities with respect to this case. Judge Woods noted that the precise nature of [the State/ADEs] financial and oversight responsibilities must await further refinement of the consolidation plan and development of a budget for such consolidated district. Id. at 1228. PCSSD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE appealed Judge Woods decisions in LRSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, and LRSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220. The Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed Judge Woods  finding on liability for interdistrict constitutional violations by PCSSD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE, but reversed his remedy of consolidation^ on the ground that, while the interdistrict violations of the Constitution called for an interdistrict remedy, consolidation of the three school ^Thus, the cat had been belledfor the time being. The cat was not long belled. -18- AO72A (Rev.8/82) districts was not required. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8\" Cir. 1985). Rather than remanding the case to the district court for further findings and a detailed remedial decree, the Court spelled out its own interdistrict remedy?^ Id. at 434-36. Although this interdistrict remedy allowed LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to remain autonomous, it called for. among other things: changing boundaries between PCSSD and LRSD\nrevising attendance zones so that each school would reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district within a permitted variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race\nencouraging intradistrict and interdistrict M to M transfers\nand creating a limited number of magnet or specialty schools. Id. at 435-36. The principles of the interdistrict remedy outlined in the majority opinion later became the basis for the desegregation plans that were implemented in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. LRSD proceeded to develop a controlled choice desegregation plan, which was approved by Judge Woods on February Tl, 1987 (docket no. 739). Under this plan, LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance Judge Woods later wrote an article in the Arkansas Law Review critiquing the Eighth Circuits decision. Judge Henry Woods and Beth Deere, Reflections on the Little Rock School Case, 44 Ark. L. Rev. 971 (1991). ln a separate opinion. Judge Richard S. Arnold made the following observation about the remedy fashioned by the majority: The District Court (though we are today disagreeing with some of its conclusions) is presided over by a scholarly and distinguished judge. That court, not this one, is in the best position to write a decree. Instead, a decree today springs full-grown from the brow of this Court, a decree that will, I dare say, startle all the parties to this case, including even those (if there are any) who like what they see. LRSD, 778 F.2d at 437 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). -19- AO72AAO72A zone. After a student was assigned to a school, the students parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus 12.5% of the black student population at the school. The plan also provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two junior high, and two high schools), with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski Coxmty school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. Finally, the plan established a Magnet Review Committee, with representatives of each of the three districts, along with a non-voting member representing Joshua and the Knight Intervenors.^^ The controlled choice plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year (docket no. 670). While the controlled choice plan was intended to create racial balance, it resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. For that reason and others. Judge Woods later found the plan to be ill-conceived. LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989), revd., 921 F.2d 1371 (1990). LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year, which all parties agreed would be a stabilizing year to allow LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. Id. With that understanding. Judge Woods approved LRSDs proposed desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year. Id. D. The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans After long and difficult negotiations that began in 1988, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and the State/ADE agreed to a global settlement of all aspects of this case. In the spring of 1989, ^'The Knight Intervenors are members of the LRSD Classroom Teachers Association. -20-the parties submitted the following final settlement documents^ to Judge Woods: (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement/ which, among other things, fixed the State/ADEs total financial liability to the three school districts to be an amount not to exceed $129,750,000/ and (b) separate comprehensive Settlement Plans for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD and a comprehensive Interdistrict Settlement Plan. Judge Woods rejected each of the four separate Settlement Plans'*' and the 1990 Settlement Agreement,**^ as submitted\n^^See footnote 3, supra, for an explanation of the terminology I will use in referring to these settlement documents. A copy of the 1990 Settlement Agreement is attached to LRSDs and Joshuas Joint Motion seeking approval of that agreement (docket no. 1174). The 1990 Settlement Agreement contained detailed provisions governing the State/ADEs role in funding and implementing the separate LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Interdistrict Settlement Plans. Among other things, the State agreed to pay the three school districts a total of not more than $129,750,000. All of the parties agreed to release all claims against each other and to dismiss this case, with prejudice, as to each party. As indicated previously, these four Settlement Plans contained the detailed desegregation obligations that LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD contractually agreed to implement under the district courts supervision. See footnote 3, supra. 41 Judge Woods refused to approve the Settlement Plans because he believed they were facially imconstitutional and outside the mandate of the Eighth Circuit: In LRSDs proposed plan almost one-fourth of the elementary schools are contemplated to be all black. The entire mandatory busing burden at the elementary level for desegregation purposes falls on black children. ... All of the historically black schools lie east of University Avenue, and all are proposed to be all-black incentive schools. Double funding is promised for the all-black schools. Yet it is impossible to determine from the submissions how the funds will be spent. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1169. Judge Woods refused to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement because it was contingent upon legislative approval and a legislative appropriation to fund it. I cannot in good conscience accept this bill as having passed. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1164. -21- AO72Aordered the parties to implement a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan\nappointed Eugene Reville to the position of Metropolitan Supervisor\nand conferred upon Mr. Reville a wide array of powers over all three school districts that, in many respects, closely resembled consolidationthe remedy the Eighth Circuit had previously rejected. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1164-69. Shortly after Judge Woods entered his decision, the Arkansas Legislature passed a bill funding the over $100,000,000 that the State/ADE was obligated to pay to the three school districts under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. Based on this new development, the parties resubmitted the Settlement Agreement to Judge Woods for approval. On December 11, 1989, Judge Woods entered an Order which added certain new conditions to the Settlement Agreement\napproved it, as modified\nand directed the parties to carry out its terms. LRSD v. PCSSD, 726 F. Supp. 1544, 1549-51 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Judge Woods December 11 Order also specifically disapproved that portion of the Settlement Agreement which called for LRSD to pay $2,000,000 ofthe $3,150,000 in attorneys fees that the parties had agreed to pay to Joshuas counsel. Id. at 1554-56.\" Each ofthe school districts and Joshua appealed the district courts decisions to the Eighth Circuit, which reversed and remanded the case with instructions to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the four Settlement Plans, as submitted by the parties. LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371. In reaching that decision, the Court made a number of important rulings that have had a profound \"Under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement, Joshuas counsel was to be paid attorneys fees of $3,150,000, which the parties agreed should be allocated as follows: LRSD: $2,000,000\nthe State/ADE: $750,000\nPCSSD: $300,000\nand NLRSD: $100,000. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -22- AO72A (Rev.a/82) influence on future developments in the case. First, the Court noted that the appeal arose from settlements agreed to by all the parties (a most important fact) and that [t]he law strongly favors settlements which should be hospitably received: This may be especially true in the present contexta protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties, especially the defendants. Id. at 1383. As further support for that conclusion, the Court made the following observation: This is, after all, no ordinary litigation. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, its lawyers and its predecessors, have vigorously prosecuted this case and its ancestors for more than 30 years. Absent an extremely good reason-and we have been given nonewe are reluctant to disregard their judgment as to what is best for their own clients. Id. at 1386. Second, the Court explicitly recognized the important role of future monitoring in the case and the need for it to continue for a long time\"'. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervisionmonitoring, at leastfor a long time. Id. at 1383 (emphasis added). The Court also emphasized the importance of the district court ensuring that the settlement plans [are] scrupulously adhered to, that monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. Id. at 1386. Third, the Court recognized that a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties compliance with them will be carefully monitored. Id. at 1388. Therefore, the Court directed the creation of the ODM to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate. Id. -23- A0 72A IFinally, the Court reversed Judge Woods decision on attorneys fees and awarded counsel for Joshua $3,150,000, the full amount of attorneys fees provided for under the Settlement Agreement. These attorneys fees were allocated and payable among the parties as follows: LRSD ($2,000,000)\n*' State/ADE ($750,000)\nPCSSD ($300,000)\nand NLRSD ($100,000). Id. at 1390. In an Order entered July 6, 1990, Judge Woods concluded that, because he was unable to successfully implement a plan to bring equity to the children of this county under the restrictions imposed by the Court of Appeals, the time had come for another judge to assume the burden of this litigation since it is my unalterable decision to recuse. LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F. Supp. 632,636 (E.D. Ark. 1990). Later that day, the case was reassigned, by random selection. to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (docket no. 1373). E. LRSDs Implementation Of Its Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And 1995 Section IV of the Settlement Agreement explicitly provided that the State/ADE conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A. Attachment A was a Release of All Claims Against the State, pursuant to which all parties to this litigation released all claims they might have against the State/ADE relating to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Attachments B, C, and D were identical releases that ran in favor of LRSD, PCSSD, and **The State/ADE agreed to advance LRSDs share of these attorneys fees, which were to be deducted from payments the State/ADE owed LRSD under Section VI of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -24- AO72ANLRSD. Finally, Attachments A, B, C, and D each contained the same language providing that this action (LR-C-82-866) is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the State/ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD. Thus, the Settlement Agreement expressly provided for the dismissal of this case, with prejudice, except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" Attachments A, B, C, and D to the Settlement Agreement (docket no. 1174) (emphasis added). On the date the Eighth Circuit entered its decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans, only the State/ADE had moved to be dismissed, with prejudice. as a party to this action.'*^ Thus, one of Judge Wrights first rulings in this case was a January 18, 1991 Order that: (1) dismissed the State/ADE as a party to this action pursuant to the terms of the parties settlement agreement\nand (2) converted the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor to the ODM, which she vested with the authority to monitor the school districts compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modification of, or addition to, such plans and agreements (docket no. 1418). Ann Marshall, Arma Hart, Polly Ramer, and Linda Bryant, all of whom previously worked for Mr. Reville in the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor, were allowed to continue in their present positions subject to the later approval of In its December 12, 1990 decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and four separate Settlement Plans, the Eighth Circuit directed the district court to enter a fresh order dismissing the State as a party pursuant to the terms of the parties settlement agreement. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1394. Under the explicit language of the Settlement Agreement, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD were each entitled to the entry of a similar order dismissing them, with prejudice, as parties to this action. For reasons that are not apparent from a review of the record, LRSD waited until November 30, 1995, to move for an order dismissing this case with prejudice (docket no. 2573). See discussion infra at pp. 31 -32. On January 26, 1998, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 3109) pursuant to which LRSD was dismissed, with prejudice, as a party to this action and the case was administratively terminated (docket no. 3110). -25- AO72A (Rev.8/82)the court-appointed monitor. In a Memorandum Opinion entered February 28,1991 (docket no. 1442), the district court made it clear that, even though the State had now been dismissed as a party, it remained obligated to comply with its settlement obligations, which when understood in conjunction with the language in both the Eighth Circuits order of December 12, 1990, and this Courts order of January 18, 1991, also obligate the State to continue funding the ODM by making the annual contribution of $200,000 required in Judge Woods June 27, 1989 Order.'* Likewise, LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD were required to continue their annual funding of the ODM on a per pupil pro-rated basis. On April 5,1991, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order (docket no. 1459) that appointed Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor, at an annual salary of $98,000.' '*ln an Order entered August 18,1993 (docket no. 1947), Judge Wright emphasized that, while the State/ADE was no longer a formal party in this action, it is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the settlement plans. In an Order entered December 10, 1993 (docket no. 2045), Judge Wright held that the State agreed not only to the obligations contained in the 1990 Settlement Agreement, but also to the obligations contained in the May 31, 1989 letter from its counsel, H. William Allen, which is referred to in Section III ofthe 1990 Settlement Agreement as the Arkansas Department of Education monitoring plan. In then- pleadings, the parties often refer to this latter document as the Allen letter. 'The first budget Judge Woods approved for the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor was for fiscal year July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. That budget totaled $353,710.24 and included Mr. Revilles salary of $98,500, plus the salary and overhead for four other employees (docket no. 1246). Over the next ten years, the budget for the ODM more than doubled to reach $784,188 for fiscal year 2000-01. The staffing ofthe ODM also more than doubled to reach ten employees. As indicated previously, under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the State/ADE was required to pay $200,000, annually, as its share of the cost ofthe ODM. The balance ofthe ODM budget was paid by LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD on a pro-rata basis that was calculated based upon the percentage of students in Pulaski County who attended each ofthe three school districts. For example, the ODMs 2000-01 fiscal year budget of $784,188 was allocated among the parties as follows\n-26- AO72ADuring the first few months of 1991, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua entered into negotiations that resulted in numerous modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. It was the parties position that they were authorized to make those changes based upon language in the Eighth Circuits December 12,1990 decision providing that the parties were free, by agreement. to modify the settlement plans . . . subject, of course, to the approval of the District Court. LRSD,92\\F.2dat 1393 n. 15. Subsequently, the parties submitted the modified Settlement Plans to the district court for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order rejecting all of the $784,188 - 200.000 (State/ADE payment) $584,188 AO72A zPou ain'\u0026gt;\\ LRSDs share PCSSDs share NLRSDs share (47.64% of total Pulaski County enrollment) (35.36% of total Pulaski County enrollment) (17.00% of total Pulaski County enrollment) $278,307.16 206,568.88 99.311.96 $584,188.00 On September 28,2001, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 3522) approving the ODMs budget for the current fiscal year, which is $707,071, This budget included a 5% pay raise for all employees, which totaled $21,042. Ms. Marshalls salary increased from $111,131 to $116,688 (docket no. 3509). Since the creation of the ODM, the district court has approved the following budgets: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1989-90 $353,710.24 (docket no. 1246) 1990-91 $293,833.74 (docket nos. 1391 \u0026amp; 1405) 1991-92 $591,557.52 (docket no. 1497) 1992-93 $578,060.81 (docket nos. 1822 \u0026amp; 1836) 1993-94 $646,617.00 (docket nos. 2055 \u0026amp; 2155) 1994-95 $661,768.00 (docket nos. 2359 \u0026amp; 2380) 1995-96 $631,273.00 (docket nos. 2567 \u0026amp; 2599) 1996-97 $730,756.00 (docket nos. 2852 \u0026amp; 3001) 1997-98 $730,716.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 1998-99 $751,639.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 1999-00 $764,872.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp; 3364) 2000-01 $784,188.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp;3364) 2001-02 $707,071.00 (docket nos. 3509 \u0026amp; 3522) Thus, in the twelve years since its creation, the ODM has requested that LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE pay for budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. As the largest of the three school districts, LRSD has been required to pay approximately 35% of the total cost of the ODM. -27-legion of proposed modifications to the Settlement Plans on the ground that they fell outside the narrow realm of modifications and adjustments deemed permissible by the Eighth Circuit [in its December 12, 1990 decision]. LRSD, 769 F. Supp. at 1483, 1489.' On July 15, 1991, the district court entered a lengthy Memorandum and Order denying the parties motion to reconsider its rejection of their proposed modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491. In doing so. Judge Wright made it clear that: (a) she disagreed with the parties position that the Settlement Plans are fluid, open to continual and considerable revision as long as the parties agree and the changes are not facially unconstitutional\nand (b) she viewed the Eighth Circuits approval of the Settlement Plans as being akin to establishing a benchmark... a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court. Id. at 1494. LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Joshua appealed on the ground that the district courts decisions confined them within limits that are too narrow, and that all of their proposed changes, being constitutional, workable, and fair, should have been approved. 'Among the changes the parties sought to make in the four 1990 settlement plans were the following: (1) deleting from PCSSDs settlement plan major portions of the section on special education, especially concerning handicapped children\n(2) eliminating provisions in PCSSDs settlement plan addressing issues related to black students being disciplined disproportionately\n(3) removing several programs from PCSSDs settlement plan aimed at improving student achievement\n(4) deleting from PCSSDs settlement plan the parties agreement to abide by fourteen guiding principles which apply to the process of permanent plan development\n(5) eliminating from LRSDs settlement plan science and social studies as core areas emphasized in remediation programs at the secondary level\n(6) changing LRSDs settlement plan to limit the four-year-old program originally scheduled for all schools by 1993-94 to only eleven schools, with a promise that a long-range implementation plan will be developed for additional four-year-old classes\n(7) changing LRSDs settlement plan to delay the development of parent home study guides and computer managed instructional technology for tracking student progress\n(8) changing LRSDs settlement plan by eliminating staff positions for program specialist and specialist for alternative classrooms\nand (9) changing the interdistrict plan to reduce from six to four the number of interdistrict schools planned for the future. LRSD, 769 F. Supp. at 1484-87. I -28- AO72AAppeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d at 255. In affirming in part and reversing in part, the Eighth Circuit noted that [t]here is much in the District Courts opinions with which we agree, including the observation that the 1989 settlement should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case. Id. However, the Court went on to hold that the district court was too strict with itself in not allowing the parties to modify details of those settlement plans that did not affect the three school districts major substantive commitments to desegregation: The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solenrn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. ... If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation, the District Court has the authority to consider it. Id. at 256. Finally, to provide guidance to the district court, the Eighth Circuit set forth seven elements that form the essence and core of the Settlement Plans and from which there can be no retreaf'\". It maybe helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable\n(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools\nand (7) appropriate involvement of parents. As indicated supra at footnote 3, the district court and the parties generally have referred to the 1989 settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1990 Settlement Plans because the Eighth Circuit did not approve those settlement documents until December 12, 1990. Regardless of the year used to reference these documents, the Eighth Circuit and the district court are referring to the same Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans. -29- AO72A (Rev.8/82)Id. (emphasis added). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright entered an Order approving most of the proposed modifications to LRSDs 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan, which the parties referred to as LRSDs May 1992 Desegregation Plan and the May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Judge Wright attached copies of both of these Plans to her May 1, 1992 Order (docket no. 1587). LRSDs implementation of its obligations under the 1992 Plans did not always go smoothly. For example, on March 19, 1993, Judge Wright delivered a strong statement to LRSDs School Board and attorneys explaining the importance of LRSD fully and completely implementing its desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans\nSince the time of victory by the Little Rock School District in this case, when the Court of Appeals granted almost every facet of relief requested by Little Rock, the Little Rock School District has shown a tendency to drag its feet and act as if it had lost, rather than won, the litigation which it instituted. The Little Rock School District and the other school districts are in court because the Little Rock School District won its case and won the relief it requested. Y et the major complainer, the chief whiner, the number one barrier to a legitimate declaration of a unitary desegregated school system is the victorious complaining party, the Little Rock School District. The biblical reference, in a different context, is to the effect that if you ask, you will receive. Well, you asked, you got it, and it is the basic job of this Court to see that you receive it in full measure. * * * I have never seen, heard or read of a case in which the victors conducted themselves like the vanquished  until now. If we have to have two full hearings a month, in which Board members are required to be present, then we will do so. We will do everything that is required to see that you take the medicine to achieve the cure that you asked the Federal Courts to give you. Judge Wrights Statement to LRSD Board members and Counsel at 2-3 and 6, attached as -30- AO72A! Exhibit 1 to docket no. 2730.^ Between 1991 and 1996, almost all of the district courts Orders involving LRSD related to the following issues\nthe approval of LRSDs annual budgets (docket nos. 1759,1897, 1958, 2216, 2280, 2319, and 2709)\nLRSDs closing of certain elementary schools (docket nos. 1926 and 2351)\nand LRSDs designation and construction of the interdistrict and magnet schools called for under the Settlement Plans (docket nos. 1550, 1832, 1848, 1895, 2225, and 2329). During this period of time, the Eighth Circuit also entered several important decisions that: (1) extended school district millages under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8 Cir. 1992)\n(2) upheld the new zoning plan for electing school board members for LRSD and PCSSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904 (8'\" Cir. 1995)\nand (3) clarified language in the 1990 Settlement Agreement regarding the States funding obligations to LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8' Cir. 1996). On November 30,1995, LRSD filed a Motion for Order of Dismissal (docket no. 2573), requesting the district court to dismiss this case, with prejudice, pursuant to Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement.^' Attachment B stated, in pertinent part: It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School In People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 246 F.3d 1073, 1078 (7'*' Cir. 2001), Judge Posner observed that state and local officials are under no duty to love the chains that federal judges, however justifiably, fasten upon them. In this case, it is more than a little ironic that LRSD has forged each link in the chains that have bound it for the last thirteen years. As indicated previously. Attachment B is a fully executed Release pursuant to which all parties agreed to release any and all claims they had against LRSD arising from or relating to this litigation. -31- AO72A fRftvDistrict No. 1, et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock School District (the Litigation) is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement (docket no. 1174). In seeking that relief, LRSD acknowledged that the dismissal would not affect the district courts jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of its desegregation obligations or to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement or the terms of the Settlement Plans. On March 11,1996, the district court entered a Memorandum and Order (docket no. 2640) denying LRSDs Motion for Order of Dismissal on the ground that: The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (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 Courts monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. i LRSD appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit. On December 15, 1997, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter an order dismissing the case with prejudice, as provided for under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement. LRSD v. PCSSD, 131 F.3d 1255 (8'* Cir. 1997). In reaching this decision, the Court stated the following: Although we can well understand the frustration the district court has experienced over the years in carrying out our instructions, we conclude that the Districts motion should have been granted. As we held in our 1992 decision, the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case. See Little Rock -32- AO72A (Rgv.8/82)School District, 971 F.2d at 165. As the agreement specifically provides, the district court is permitted (and indeed must, in order to comply with our instructions), to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the desegregation plans. Moreover, the desegregation plaintiffs may bring proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans. In short, the entry of such an order would do nothing to relieve the three districts of their continuing obligation to honor their commitments as set forth in the settlement agreement and the plans. Id. at 1257-58 (footnote omitted). On January 26,1998, the district court entered an Order (docket no. 3109) that dismissed th is case and cases consolidated herein, including, but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood V. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education ofLRSD,'' with prejudice, as to LRSD and its current and former board members named in this litigation. The district court also entered a Memo to the File (docket no. 3110) stating that, because the Plaintiff in this case was dismissed with prejudice, the Clerk is instructed to administratively terminate this case, but to keep the case files open and in their current location in the Clerks office so that the Court can continue to perform its ongoing duties regarding the supervision and implementation of the desegregation plans. F. Joshuas Request For An Interim Award Of Attorneys Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement On November 22,1995, counsel for Joshua moved for an interim award of attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $805,611.81 for monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuit approved the settlement of this case on December 12, 1990 (docket no. 2565). Counsel for Joshua later reduced the amount of this request to $795,301.81 (docket no. 2791) and argued that it should be apportioned among the three Pulaski County school districts as follows\nLRSD: 75% to 80%\nNLRSD: 5% to 10%\nand PCSSD\n15% to 20%with the final percentages totaling -33- AO72A /Dm.100% (docket no. 2792). LRSD filed a Response and Supporting Memorandum of Law (docket nos. 2636 and 2637) challenging Joshuas right to be awarded any attorneys fees or costs for post-settlement monitoring activities. LRSD argued that, as a part of the consideration for LRSD paying Joshuas counsel $2,000,000 in attorneys fees in connection with the 1990 settlement, Joshuas counsel had specifically agreed, on the record, that they would not seek future fees from LRSD for monitoring activities during the life of the settlement plans. In support of its position, LRSD relied upon the following colloquy between counsel and the Eighth Circuit appellate panel during oral argument in LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371: NORMAN CHACHKIN, ATTORNEY FOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS: I just want to make one other observation and Mr. Heller can confirm this. Although it is not written into the settlement agreement we are happy to confirm it here and to be bound by it. The agreement between Little Rock and Joshua was that the fee payment from the Little Rock School District would also cover out of the court monitoring activities by the attorneys for Joshua during the life of the settlement plans so long as it wasnt necessary to go back to court. If the settlement plans go forward as Mr. Walker suggested, the parties are committed to a monitoring system and committed to working together to ease any implementation problems and avoid any difficulties. Thats going to take attorney time. We have committed to Little Rock that we will not seek any fees from them for those activities unless it is necessary to go back to courtfor enforcement purposes and in that instance we ll simply be free to make an application if we think we 're entitled to it. i j i JUDGE RICHARD S. ARNOLD: Alright, thank you. Now, Mr. Heller, you are recognized. -34- AO72A (Rev.8/82)CHRIS HELLER, ATTORNEY FOR LRSD: * * * Id like to confirm what Mr. Chachkin said about the agreement. Because of the responsibilities assigned to the Joshua Intervenors in our settlement plans, there is significant work for them to do over the next six or seven years, and our agreement on the fees did contemplate that there would [be] no further payment for that work. (Emphasis added.) In a Memorandum Opinion and Order (docket no. 2821) filed on September 23, 1996, Judge Wright concluded that LRSD and Joshua contractually agreed that the $2,000,000 in attorneys fees paid by LRSD in connection with the 1990 settlement also covered all monitoring activities performed by Joshuas counsel during the life of the Settlement Plans. Therefore, Judge Wright ruled that Joshuas counsel was not entitled to recover any attorneys fees from LRSD for performing monitoring activities. On October 3,1996, Joshuas counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Fee Petition (docket no. 2833) and supporting Memorandum of Law (docket no. 2834), in which he urged the district court to award attorneys fees under the bad faith exception to the general rule that. absent a statute or enforceable contract, litigants must pay their own attorneys fees. On March 24, 1997, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration. On April 22, 1997, counsel for Joshua filed a Notice of Appeal (docket no. 2966) of the district courts March 24,1997 Order denying his request for interim attorneys fees. I will return to discuss the final resolution of this issue later in this decision. -35- AO72AG. LRSDs First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction On May 17, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2665) and supporting Brief (docket no. 2666). In these pleadings, LRSD argued that: (1) it was only required to implement its desegregation obligations under its Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan for six years\n(2) it had implemented the Settlement Plan, beginning with the 1990-91 school year, and Ihe six year term of the Plans will expire at the end of the 1995-96 school year\nand (3) LRSD has implemented in good faith many desegregation plans for more than three decades. LRSD was a substantially unitary school district in 1982, but it nevertheless filed this interdistrict litigation in a good faith effort to maintain a biracial public school system in Little Rock. A recent and exhaustive audit of LRSDs desegregation obligations shows that LRSD is in substantial compliance with the Plans. Docket no. 2665. On August 1, 1996, Joshua filed a Memorandum Opposing LRSDs Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2730) in which they challenged LRSDs contention that the 1990 Settlement Plans called for a six-year implementation period. In support of their position, Joshua pointed out that no provision in any of the settlement documents limited LRSDs implementation of its desegregation obligations to six years. Joshua also argued that LRSD had failed to discharge its burden of establishing the requisite implementation of the court-approved settlement. On September 23, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order (docket no. 2821) denying LRSDs Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction on the grounds that: (1) the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans do not contain any provision that allowed LRSD to terminate its duty to comply with the settlement plans after ... six years\n and (2) -36- AO72ALRSD failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had substantially complied with its obligations under the Settlement Plans. The district court went on to urge LRSD and Joshua to modify the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable so that LRSD could better position itself to argue that it is entitled to unitary status and relief from court supervision: Instead of presenting substantial evidence of its compliance with its goals as set forth in the plan, the LRSD submits arguments that it has achieved unitary status because data from the LRSD compares favorably with data from districts which have been declared unitary. The Court would be inclined to agree with the LRSD with respect to many of these arguments if the LRSD were not contractually bound by the plan which it voluntarily adopted. The Court has encouraged the parties to consider modifying those parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. The Court has provided the parties with the testimony of experts to assist in the modification process. Instead, the LRSD has used the testimony of these experts to ask the Court to end Court jurisdiction without first proceeding with plan modifications. The Court cannot so easily relieve the district of its contractual obligations. Once again the Court invites the parties to follow procedures to modify the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. Docket no. 2821 at 12 (emphasis in original). On December 6, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Plan Development Period I (docket no. 2878) that requested Judge Wright: (1) to allow a six to nine month period for LRSD to concentrate its efforts to develop plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district\n(2) to allow LRSD to use the ODM as a consultant to participate in the development of plan modifications in areas such as budget development, staff development. student assignments, and resolution of discipline issues\nand (3) to withhold any further monitoring of the LRSD desegregation plan during this six to nine month period. In support of its Motion, LRSD noted that the Knight Intervenors, PCSSD, and NLRSD supported its request. -37- AO72A (Rev.8/82) iOn December 18, 1996, Joshua filed a Response (docket no. 2891) that did not oppose LRSDs request for an interval of time to develop a new desegregation plan, but expressed reservations about ODM, as an arm of the court, participating in the negotiations between the parties. Joshua also urged Judge Wright to appoint additional monitors to work on a matter of particular concern to themthe alleged ill-treatment of class members. On December 27, 1996, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2901) granting LRSDs Motion. In this Order, Judge Wright held that: (1) LRSD will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan\nand (2) ODM can advise LRSD and other parties during the negotiations for plan modifications and ODM can participate in negotiations as a facilitator, but ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party. Judge Wright also denied Joshuas request to hire additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members. December 27,1996 Order at 3 (docket no. 2901). H. The Perplexing Final Resolution Of Joshuas Request For Still More Attorneys Fees From LRSD On September 26,1997, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (docket no. 3049) and a supporting Memorandum Brief (docket no. 3050). After Joshua objected to a number of provisions in the proposed revised plan, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. As part of these negotiations, LRSD and Joshua took up the still unresolved issue of Joshuas request for $795,301 in attorneys fees for performing post-settlement monitoring i -38- AO72A (Rev.8/82)activities, which was pending on appeal to the Eighth Circuit?^ On January 21,1998, LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (docket no. 3107) in which they admitted that ongoing negotiations were taking place on the attorneys fees issue: Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshuas past, present, and future claims for attorneys fees and costs by mediation. January 21, 1998 Joint Motion at 2 (docket no, 3107). See also Renewed Joint Motion for Approval of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan filed on March 23, 1998 (docket no. 3136). On February 27, 1998, the Eighth Circuit entered a Mandate (docket no. 3125) which granted the stipulation of the parties for dismissal of the appeal of Judge Wrights March 24, 1997 Order denying Joshuas request for interim attorneys fees. The entry of this voluntary Judgment dismissing Joshuas appeal of the attorneys fees issue strongly suggests that, sometime prior to February 27, 1998, LRSD and Joshua arrived at a settlement of that issue. In a letter agreement dated June 10,1998,^ LRSD and Joshua formally documented their ^^As indicated previously, on April 22, 1997, Joshua appealed Judge Wrights Order denying their requested interim attorneys fees (docket no. 2966). At the time the parties entered into these negotiations, that appeal was still pending before the Eighth Circuit. The first time this letter agreement became part of the record in this case was on March 15, 2002, when LRSD attached it as Exhibit 7 to its Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581). Thus, before her decision to step down in this case. Judge Wright was never made aware of the facts surrounding the agreement that LRSD would pay Joshuas counsel $700,000 in attorneys fees for past monitoring work, plus $48,333.33 per year for three years of future monitoring work. Furthermore, absent LRSDs decision to make the June 10,1998 letter part of the record, I would have very likely missed the troubling implications associated with the confluence of agreements on both the Revised Plan and the issue of Joshuas past and future attorneys fees. Therefore, my -39- AO72A O/OO\\ settlement of all past and future claims for attorneys fees and costs as follows: LRSD will make the following payments [to counsel for Joshua] for past fees and costs: $100,000.00 on or before June 30,1998\n$100,000.00 on or before August 31,1998\nand $500,000.00 on or before October 31,1998. For fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998. The payments described in this letter will constitute full and complete payment in satisfaction of all past or future claims for attorneys fees and costs except as specifically set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. June 10,1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to LRSDs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Inunediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581) (emphasis added).^ Although not directly relevant to the issue of unitary status, I can think of no good explanation for LRSDs decision to voluntarily pay Joshuas counsel an additional $700,000 in attorneys fees for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright had ruled he was not entitled to be paid anything from LRSD. On top of this, one of Joshuas own attorneys. Mr. Chachkin, previously had admitted during oral argument before the Eighth Circuit that the attorneys fees paid under the 1990 Settlement Agreement included future attorneys time raising this issue now, based upon facts that were not known to Judge Wright while she presided over this case, should in no way be construed as a criticism of Judge Wright for not raising this issue earlier. As I have emphasized, it was LRSDs decision to file its counsels June 10, 1998 letter as an exhibit to its March 15, 2002 Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status that alerted me to this issue. ^As indicated previously, Joshuas counsel argued to Judge Wright that LRSD should be allocated 75% to 80% of his $795,301 in attorneys fees associated with performing past monitoring activities (docket no. 2792). If those attorneys fees had been allocated on that basis, LRSD would have been responsible for paying Joshuas counsel between $596,475 and $636,240. I am at a loss to understand why LRSD would agree, in the June 10, 1998 letter, to voluntarily pay Joshuas counsel $700,000, almost $ 100,000 more than the median amount Joshuas counsel originally sought to recover from LRSD for his post-settlement monitoring work. -40- AO72Aexpended in connection with monitoring activities.^ It appears to me that Judge Wrights well- reasoned Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 2821) denying Joshuas Request for an Interim Award of Attorneys Fees and her subsequent Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration placed LRSD in an excellent position to prevail on Joshuas appeal of the district courts rulings to the Eighth Circuit. Holding what seemed to be the winning hand on appeal, I find it passing strange that LRSD would voluntarily agree to pay Joshuas counsel an additional $700,000 for post-settlement monitoring work when, as stated above, one of Joshuas other attorneys admitted this work was already included in the $2,000,000 LRSD paid to Joshuas counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. I find it somewhat discomforting that LRSD and Joshua had a meeting of the minds on an essentially new desegregation settlement plan at the same time their attorneys were discussing the settlement of Joshuas counsels request for a large interim award of attorneys fees. i 1 i i t However, I know of no facts establishing that the simultaneous negotiation of those two unrelated issues did not take place at arms length or involved a quid pro quo. From the inception of this case, Joshuas counsel has fought hard for his clients and has a well-documented record of zealously protecting their interests. I also recognize that Joshuas counsel has manned the barricades of civil rights litigation in Arkansas for over four decades and that he has a reputation for never yielding on matters of principle. Accordingly, while I do not conclude that anything improper occurred in the simultaneous negotiation of these two unrelated issues, I do have a real concern about the publics perception of the timing of these eventswhich I fear has raised troubling questions and lingering doubts. See supra, pp. 34-35. -41- AO72A (Rev.8/82)I also find it unsettling that, going forward, LRSD agreed to pay Joshuas counsel up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998, for fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. June 10, 1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581. At a minimum, all of the terms and conditions of such an unusual arrangement should have been spelled out in writing, with a clear statement regarding the duties, if any, that Joshuas counsel owed to LRSD, the party paying his fees for monitoring the implementation of the Revised Plan, and whether, under this arrangement. LRSD and Joshuas counsel entered into an attorney-client relationship. In any case, at least one thing is clear from the June 10,1998 letter agreement: In exchange for being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD, Joshuas counsel specifically agreed to undertake the obligation of monitoring all aspects of LRSDs implementation of the Revised Plan. Subsequently, Joshuas counsel submitted to LRSD periodic Statements for Legal Services Rendered for attorneys fees incurred in connection with his work implementing and monitoring the Revised Plan.^ See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581. According to Joshuas counsels periodic statements for legal services, LRSD paid him a total of $124,861.15, which was billed in the following installments: July, 1998, through October, 1998: $16,111.12\nNovember, 1998, through October, 1999: $48,333.33\nNovember, 1999: $4,027.78\nDecember, 1999: $4,027.78\nJanuary, 2000, through May, 2000: $20,138.90\nJune, 2000: $4,027.78\nJuly, 2000: $4,027.78\nAugust, 2000, through September, 2000: $8,055.56\nOctober, 2000: $4,027.78\n5*As discussed infra at pp. 57-59, at no point between the district courts approval of the Revised Plan on April 10,1998, and the filingofLRSDsCompliance Report on March 15,2001, did Joshuas counsel ever raise any of the compliance issues that are now before me, pursuant to  8.2 through 8.2.5 of the Revised Plan. -42- AO72A (Rev.8/82)November, 2000: $4,027.78\nDecember, 2000: $4,027.78\nand January, 2001: $4,027.78. See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581.^ Thus, for each month between July, 1998, and January, 2001, LRSD paid Joshuas counsel $4,027.78 for attorneys fees incurred monitoring LRSDs implementation of the Revised Plan. For good reason, there is a widespread public perception that this case has become a decades-old cottage industryand a large one at thatfor lawyers. Over ten years ago, in Judge Woods decision to step down from this case, he decried the many appeals perfected in this case, some of which have accomplished nothing but enrichment of the participating attorneys, and called the lawyer fees paid by the three districts grossly exorbitant. LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Since that time, things appear to have changed little, with all three school districts paying substantial annual attorneys fees to their own lawyers and substantial annual payments to the ODM, whose requested annual budget for the last several years has been in the range of $700,000. At the same time, the threat of paying large future attorneys fees to Joshuas counsel hangs like the sword of Damocles above the heads of all the parties.^ 'The record fails to contain an explanation of why Joshuas counsel did not submit Statements for Legal Services Rendered for the months of February through June, 2001. 5As everyone knows, Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the country and has always had difficulty finding funds for public education. Although LRSD is better off than many school districts in the State, it is by no means affluent. Like other school districts, it struggles each year to make ends meet. For example, during the last few years, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has reported on the need for the repair or renovation of the basic infrastructure in many LRSD schools and on school teachers who have been forced to purchase pencils and other basic school supplies for their students. By my calculations, since 1990, counsel for Joshua has been paid $3,974,861 ($3,150,000 + $700,000 + $124,861). Over that same period of time, 1 would guess LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD have paid their own attorneys a total of at least $4,000,000. If my estimate is correct, that means, since 1990, the attorneys for all parties in this case have been paid at least $8,000,000. As indicated, supra at footnote 47, the ODM has submitted budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. -43- I AO72A ZOa*/ OZOO^All members of the professional group, who have directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case, are placed on notice that 1 intend to monitor closely the costs associated with this action. Being bom and raised in Scott County, one of the poorest counties in Arkansas, I understand the meaning ofbeing careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that important point fixed in their minds from here on out. Thus, since 1990, the professional group in this case probably has been paid close to $16,000,000. Counsel for LRSD, Joshua, and the staff of the ODM know that LRSD grapples annually with funding and budget issues. They also know that the approximately $ 16,000,000 paid to them since 1990 has come from funds earmarked for the school children of this district. In making this observation, I in no way mean to imply that lawyers and monitors have not been necessary to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD properly implemented and scrupulously adhered to their desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans. My only point is that I would have hoped this professional group would have kept uppermost in their minds that every penny paid to them for their work in this case is one less penny available to help in the education of a child. Thus, I would have also hoped that the professional group would have been as frugal and judicious as possible in the expenditure of their time or budgeted funds. One of the ways the attorneys could have kept this covenant with the districts school children would have been to discount their normal hourly billing rates. In the case of the ODM, it might have foregone raises and minimized staff and office space requirements in the interest of bringing this case to a close as economically as possible. My review of the pleadings since 1990 has dashed all such utopian hopes. For example. Judge Woods cited the grossly exorbitant lawyer fees paid by the three school districts as the principal reason for [their] poor financial situation and noted that LRSDs attorneys had billed 31 days in a 30-day month. LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Similarly, Judge Wright noted in her September 23,1996 Memorandum Opinion denying Joshuas motion for interim attorneys fees that their counsel was attempting to bill his time at the rate of $250 per hour, which she found was not reasonable. September 23, 1996 Memorandum Opinion at footnote 6 (docket no. 2821). Likewise, the staff and budget for the ODM has more than doubled since 1989, even though the more streamlined obligations of the Revised Plan approved in early 1998 would seem to have required less monitoring ofLRSDs implementation of those obligations. Similarly, for the last few years, it appears NLRSD has been unitary and has required very little in the way of monitoring by the ODM. Thus, I would have expected annual reductions in the staff and budget for the ODM, beginning in 1998, and continuing through the current fiscal year. That has not happened. -44- AO72A (Rev.8/82)AO72A I. Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan On April 10,1998, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order (docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan. Importantly, Judge Wright held that the Revised Plan constituted a new consent decree or settlement agreement between LRSD and Joshua: The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan: shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82- 866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) with the following exceptions: a. b. c. d. e. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (Settlement Agreement)\nThe Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nOrder dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nThe M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. April 10, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 3 (docket no. 3144) (emphasis added). Alternatively, Judge Wright concluded that, even if the Court considered the Revised Plan as a modification to the 1990 Settlement Plan, she would still approve the Revised Plan because As indicated supra at p. 27, LRSD and Joshua agreed to certain changes in LRSDs 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. In a forty-four page Order entered on May 1, 1992 (docket no. 1587), Judge Wright approved most of those proposed modifications which were incorporated in the LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan and the May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Judge Wrights April 10, 1998 Memorandum Opinion fails to mention those Plans, which were the operative consent decrees LRSD was operating under at the time she entered her decision. -45-the parties had satisfied the standard for modifying a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo V. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,393 (1992), and LRSD, 56 F.3d at 914. In reaching this conclusion. Judge Wright noted that LRSD had implemented certain aspects of the 1990 Settlement Plan so successfully that the district court had withdrawn supervision over those areas. However, the court also recognized that some goals in the 1990 Settlement Plan [were] out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan ... may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD. April 10, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 6 (docket no. 3144) (footnotes omitted). One such group of potentially unreachable goals cited by Judge Wright were the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities [which] may never be met regardless of the effort put forth by LRSD. Id. See Testimony of Dr. Herbert J. Walberg at 17-25 (docket no. 2692)\nTestimony of Dr. David J. Armor at 18-39 (docket no. 2693)\nand Testimony of Dr. Gary Orfield at 25-31 (docket no. 2768). J. LRSDs Implementation Of Its Obligations Under The Revised Plan Between April 10, 1998, and March 15, 2001, the date LRSD filed its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report seeking unitary status, LRSD and Joshua filed no substantive pleadings addressing any problems arising from LRSDs implementation of its obligations under the Revised Plan. In fact, only three documents dealing with LRSDs In an Order entered on March 27,1996 (docket no. 2648), Judge Wright released LRSD from Court supervision and monitoring in the areas of Multicultural Curriculum (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 63-80), Vocational Education (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 98-105), and Computerized Transportation System (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 227-28). See also February 9,1996, Stipulation for Order (docket no. 2626). -46- A0 72A (Ravimplementation of the Revised Plan were filed during that period of time. First, on August 11,1999, the ODM filed a lengthy Report (docket no. 3289) on LRSDs preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan. This Report reviewed the status of LRSDs implementation of a// aspects of the Revised Plan, including the following areas that have special relevance to Joshuas opposition to LRSDs pending request for unitary status\nExtracurricular Enrichment Activities (pp. 12-16)\nLearning Environment (pp. 20-22)\nMathematics (pp. 27-31)\nProgram Assessment (pp. 42-43)\nReading and Language Arts (pp. 44-48)\nRemediation (pp. 49- 52)\nand Student Discipline (pp. 67-71). The ODMs Summary and Conclusions that followed each section of the Report indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan. Second, on April 18,2000, LRSD filed a 129-page Interim Compliance Report (docket no. 3356 dated March 15, 2000). Although LRSD was not obliged to file this Report, it voluntarily did so for two stated reasons: (1) to help the District assess its progress toward full i compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the Districts good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan\nand (2) [t]he District hopes to receive comments and suggestions from interested persons as to the Districts compliance with the Revised Plan and the format and content of this status report. Interim Compliance Report at 1 (docket no. 3356). The Interim Compliance Report set forth in detail all of the programs. policies, and procedures that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. The ODM did not file any comments or objections to anything contained in LRSDs Interim Compliance Report. Likewise, nothing contained in that Report caused Joshuas counsel. -47- AO72A who was being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD to monitor its implementation of the Revised Plan, to raise any compliance issues. Finally, no interested party raised any questions concerning whether, based on the programs, policies, and procedures described in the Interim Compliance Report, LRSD was in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. This silence, it seems to me, speaks rather eloquently. Third, on Jrme 14,2000, the ODM filed a 127-page Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in the LRSD (docket no. 3366).^' The introduction to this Report contained a broad disclaimer of what was not being evaluated: This document neither evaluates the districts discipline policies and procedures nor determines how the policies are followed at various schools. Moreover, the report does not measure the effectiveness of any program, training or practices the district may have instituted to address the need for all students to be disciplined fairly and equitably, regardless of their race or sex. While the disciplinary procedures are represented by the data are legitimate and important areas of inquiry, we have not examined them here. We do provide some additional information to explain the districts general approach to discipline and to set the context for our findings, but our report focuses on the LRSDs own records and what they reflect. Report of Disciplinary Sanctions at 1 (docket no. 3366). Furthermore, because LRSD maintained disciplinary records on only suspensions and expulsions, the Report was limited to an examination of LRSDs raw data, broken down by race and sex, for students who were *'The ODM prepared this Report as part of its ongoing monitoring of the way all three Pulaski Coimty school districts imposed disciplinary sanctions on students. In previous years, the ODM had prepared similar Reports on NLRSD and PCSSD. Thus, the ODMs June 14 Report was not triggered by or related to anything in LRSDs March 15, 2000 Interim Compliance Report. I By failing to evaluate and examine the many important areas covered by this disclaimer, the ODM substantially reduced the usefulness of its Report and made it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions from the Report that were not based on pure speculation. -48- i A0 72A fRot/suspended or expelled from each elementary school, junior high school, and high school during six school years, 1993-94 through 1998-99. While the data compiled in the Report revealed that a disproportionate number of African- American male students were suspended or expelled at many schools, the lack of specific facts surrounding each suspension and expulsion (e.g., a description of the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary sanction, race of teacher or administrator issuing disciplinary sanction. socioeconomic background of student, etc.) made it impossible to determine, without speculation. the reason for this disparity.^ Additionally, because LRSD administrators assigned many of the suspended or expelled students to alternative education programs^ but failed to maintain records documenting which suspended and expelled students were sent to those programs, it was impossible to determine from the Report how many days of school each of the suspended and expelled students actually missed. Finally, because the Report did not include any data for the 1999-00 school year, it was impossible to determine if converting LRSDs junior high schools to middle schools improved behavior problems and reduced the number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the Report made it clear that this change could affect future data: Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the district made a fundamental commitment to improving students performance, both academically and The preface to the Report made it clear that the disproportionate number of Afiican- American students suspended or expelled from school is a nationwide phenomenon. The Report also pointed out that the way students behaved in school was affected by a host of factors that were beyond the influence of school personnel, such as home environment, family values, and the level of socialization prior to starting school...Report at 6. Finally, the Report observed that: Another aspect of discipline that requires note is the tremendous increase in the number of single-parent households in our society. . . . This deficiency is particularly significant for adolescent males who live with only their mothers. Report at 7. See Report at 10-12. -49- AO72A (Rev.aZ82) behaviorally, by converting to a middle school system (grades 6-8). Studies have shown that the grade 6-8 configuration is developmentally appropriate. The teaming practiced in middle schools is to provide a nurturing environment in which students can learn and also find help with the physical and emotional changes they are experiencing. Because the discipline data for 1999-2000 were not available at the time we prepared this report, we could not assess whether discipline and sanctions have changed in ways that might be attributable to the middle school approach. Report at 126. In the Reports Conclusions, the ODM made two primary criticisms of LRSDs disciplinary practices\n(1) it had not maintained and compiled comprehensive data on all the discipline sanctions [which] may leave some problems uncovered, as well as thwart assessment of the extent to which the district is preventing racial discrimination in disciplinary actions i overall\nand (2) [w]hile the report data do not reflect overall serious behavior problems in LRSD, African-Amencan males are being disciplined in disproportionately high numbers. Report at 125. The ODM also offered seven ideas... as suggestions for improving disciplinary procedures for all students in LRSD, while also reducing the over-representation ofblack students in disciplinary actions. Report at 127. K. LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan On March 15,2001, LRSD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report (docket no. 3410) and requested the court to declare it unitary with respect to all aspects of school operations. On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed their Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) in which they argued LRSD was not entitled to unitary status under the Revised Plan. On March 15, 2002, LRSD filed the pending Motion for an Immediate Declaration of -50- AO72A (Rev.a/82)Unitary Status (docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief (docket no. 3581). On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3604). On June 7,2002, LRSD filed its Reply Brief (docket no. 3607). As indicated previously, under  11 of the Revised Plan, LRSD was entitled to the entry of an order declaring it unitary if no party challenged its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Because Joshua chose to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance,  11 of the Revised Plan imposed on them the burden of proof on that issue. Joshuas counsel has acknowledged that the Revised Plan imposed on his clients the burden of proving that, as of March 15,2001LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. See Transcript of Proceedings on June 29,2001, at 26 (docket no. 3461), and Transcript of Proceedings on July 9, 2001, at 26 (docket no. 3464). In its October 3,2001 Order (docket no. 3515), the district court required LRSD to elect between two options: Option 1: (A) (B) Option 2: Present evidence concerning the LRSDs activities with respect to the Revised Plan beyond the date of March 15,2001\nand Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. (A) (B) Present evidence concerning the LRSDs activities with respect to the Revised Plan up to the date of March 15,2001, and not beyond\nand Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. LRSD filed a Response to the October 3,2001 Order (docket no. 3517) objecting to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. Subsequently, LRSD advised Judge Wright that, without waiving its objections, it selected Option 2. Therefore, any evidence of LRSDs compliance activities that took place after March 15,2001, cannot be considered in deciding the question of unitary status. -51- AO72A (Rev.a/82)III. Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan In Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), they include a Seriatim Response to Districts March 15, 2001 Compliance Report in which they list compliance problems or concerns with the following sections of the Revised Plan: 2.1 (LRSDs obligation of good faith)\n 2.1.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and 2.2.7 (LRSDs obligations regarding faculty and staff)\n 2.3 (LRSDs obligations regarding student assignment)\n 2.4 (LRSDs obligations regarding special education and related programs)\n 2.5,2.5.1,2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 (LRSDs obligations regarding student discipline)\n 2.6,2.6.1,2.6.2, and 2.11.1 (LRSDs obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, and guidance counseling)\n 2.7 and  5 (LRSDs obligations regarding improving African-American academic achievement)\n 2.8 (parental involvement)\nand  3.6 (school construction and closing). Importantly, Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report was careful to note that their concerns regarding LRSDs compliance with faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing were based primarily on information and belief or involved generalized suspicions regarding LRSDs future actions. After filing that Opposition, Joshua conducted considerable discovery to develop the facts to support their challenges to LRSDs request for unitary status. As indicated previously, before beginning the evidentiary hearings on Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs request for unitary status. Judge Wright instructed Joshuas counsel to present his argument beginning with his strongest first and proceeding to his weakest (docket no. 3461 at 54- 55). During a hearing on July 9,2001, which took place after the completion of the first two days -52- AO72A (Rev.8/821 of testimony on July 5 and 6,2001, Joshuas counsel stated that LRSDs three most serious areas of noncompliance under the Revised Plan were its failure to meet its obligations regarding: (1) good faith\n(2) improvement of academic achievement for African-American students\n and (3) improvement of the racial disparity in student discipline (docket no. 3464 at 26-29). During the evidentiary hearings on August 1 and 2,2001, Joshua completed calling all of their witnesses on the issues of LRSDs alleged substantial noncompliance with those three areas of the Revised Plan. At the beginning of the fifth day of evidentiary hearings on November 19, 2001, Judge Wright noted, on the record, that counsel for Joshua had rested his case on the first three areas of LRSDs alleged noncompliance (docket no. 3558 at 14-15). After Judge Wright denied LRSDs Motion for Directed Verdict, it presented its case on November 19 and 20 (docket nos. 3558 and 3559). On December 11,2001, Judge Wright conducted a hearing to schedule the remaining days of evidentiary hearings on Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs request for unitary status (docket no. 3560). During this hearing. Judge Wright agreed to allow Joshua and LRSD no more than five days to present additional testimony on what Joshuas counsel identified as the last three areas of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses\n(2) extracurricular activities\nand (3) guidance counseling. Judge Wright also agreed to allow Joshua to present non-cumulative testimony regarding: LRSD  s alleged failure to comply with its overall obligation of good faith regarding its implementation of programs, policies, and procedures Part of Joshuas argument that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its obligation to improve the academic achievement of Afiican-American students included the contention that LRSD had failed to make the annual assessments of the academic programs implemented to improve the achievement of Afiican-American students as required by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. -53- AO72A (Rev.a/82) regarding advancedplacement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling\", and how LRSDs programs, policies, and procedures governing advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling had adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. I conducted the final three days of evidentiary hearings on those issues, beginning on July 22, 2002. At no point during those hearings, or during the six previous days of evidentiary hearings, did Joshua present any evidence or arguments to support the contentions in their Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff ( 2.1.1,2.2-2.2.5, and 2.2.7)\nstudent assignment ( 2.3)\nspecial education and related programs ( 2.4)\nparental involvement ( 2.8)\nand school construction and closing ( 3.6). Joshuas failure to present any evidence to support their contention regarding LRSDs alleged failure to substantially comply with those sections of the Revised Plan requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments. In any case. Joshua clearly failed to maintain their burden of proving that LRSD failed to substantially comply with any of those particular sections of the Revised Plan. Thus, the determination of LRSDs request for unitary status turns on whether Joshua has maintained their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the following obligations imposed on it under the Revised Plan: (1) good faith as set forth in  2.1\n(2) student discipline as set forth in  2.5 through 2.5.4 and 2.12.2\n(3) academic achievement of Afiican-American students as set forth in  2.7,2.7.1,5.1 through 5.8, and 2.12.2\n(4) extracurricular activities as set forth in  2.6,2.6.3, and 2.12.2\n(5) advanced placement courses as set forth in  2.6,2.6.2, and 2.12.2\nand (6) guidance counseling -54- AO72A (Rev.8/82) as set forth in  2.11,1. The provisions of the Revised Plan containing LRSDs obligations in these six disputed areas, along with other provisions of the Revised Plan that are relevant to the resolution of the issue of unitary status, are summarized below. A. LRSDs Obligation Of Good Faith The first obligation imposed on LRSD was to act in good faith. Because of the importance of this obligation to the question of unitary status,  2.1 of the Revised Plan ought. in fairness, to be quoted in its entirety: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against Afiican-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. B. LRSDs Obligations Regarding Student Discipline Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 set forth LRSDs obligations regarding student discipline. Section 2.5 obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to discipline. Section 2.5.1 required LRSD to strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner, and  2.5.2 required LRSD to purge students discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery. Section 2.5.3 established the position of ombudsman, who was responsible for acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. Finally,  2.5.4 obligated LRSD to work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit -55- AO72A (Rev.8/82)frequent misbehavior. C. LRSDs Obligations To Improve And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students Section 2.7 contained LRSDs core obligation regarding the academic achievement of African-American students: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Very significantly, nowhere in this section or any other section of the Revised Plan does LRSD assume any obligation to narrow or close the academic achievement gap between white students and Afiican-American students. In order to determine the effectiveness of LRSDs academic programs designed to improve Afiican-American achievement, Section 2.7.1 obligated LRSD to assess the academic \u0026gt;5 programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year.' If the results of those assessments [reveal] that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. D. LRSDs Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors Section 2.6 required LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. Section 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 required LRSD to implement training programs to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging -56- AO72A (Rev.8/82)African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses and required guidance counselors to work with students in an effort to provide more equity in academic honors, awards, and scholarships\nSection 2,6.2 obligated LRSD to implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. E. LRSDs Obligations To Develop Remedies, Where Appropriate, For Racial Disparities In Programs And Activities Section 2.12.2 provided that LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. Joshua made no mention of LRSDs alleged failure to substantially comply with Section 2.12.2 in their June 25,2001 Opposition to LRSDs Compliance Report (docket no. 3447). However, nearly a year later, in their May 30,2002 Opposition to LRSDs Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3604), Joshua argued for the first time that thi\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1757","title":"Plantiff's designation of testimony to be stricken, motion for additional response time, Joshua intervenor's proposed findings against Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status, plaintiff's proposed findings, and notice of ADE project management tool.","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":["2002-08"],"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--21st century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","Teachers","School administrators","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Plantiff's designation of testimony to be stricken, motion for additional response time, Joshua intervenor's proposed findings against Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status, plaintiff's proposed findings, and notice of ADE project management tool."],"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/1757"],"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":["68 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\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\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's designation of testimony to be stricken; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to plaintiff's designation of testimony to be stricken; District Court, motion for additional time to file response; District Court, two orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in opposition to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status regarding the plan sections; District Court, plaintiff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create 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 vs. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW/JRT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 5 - 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER AUG O 2 2002 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The parties appeared before the Court by telephone in the absence of a court reporter on August 1, 2002 at 11 : 15 a.m. at which time the Court considered, upon the Joshua Intervenors' request, concerns they had with respect to Plaintiff LRSD's Motion to Strike. After hearing the position of the parties' counsel regarding the matter, the Court determined that the Plaintiff would have unit! August 9, 2002 in which to designate the specific testimony in the record which it wishes to have stricken, and that the Joshua Intervenors would have until Wednesday, August 14, 2002 at THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ,~.~vri fUi 58 ANO/O~RCP .. ,,~~ -~ .P..2::::... BY -7-~r---~..c__:=- - UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE 656 RECEIVFD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION AUG 1 .') 2002 OFFICE Of DlSEGMGATIOH ii.HuHlfu,.G LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 ,,co RECE\\v t ,M) V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby designates the following testimony to be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in the LRSD's Motion to Strike and accompanying brief: WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 45 1-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). C. Norman 46 1-12 Same as above. C. Norman 53 6-25 Complaints about Pickering occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 54 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 55 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 56 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 57 1-25 Same as above C. Norman 58 1-25 Complaints about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Norman, p. 71-72). C. Norman 59 1-25 Complaints about Pickering and about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year. WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 60 1-25 Complaints about Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Avis and D.J. Thames). C. Norman 61 1-20 Same as above. C. Norman 62 1-25 BCC's support of Ross and Klais occurrred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 63 1-25 BCC action against Norman and disciplinary action against Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 64 1-21 Rutherford disciplinary action occurred during 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 65 11-25 Teacher refusal to give recommendation occurred during 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 66 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 70 17-25 BCC action against Mr. Norman occurred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 71 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 72 1-18 Same as above. C. Norman 91 15-25 Cross concerning Rutherford. 1 C. Norman 92 1-14 Cross concerning BCC.2 C. Norman 92 8-23 Redirect concerning Rutherford. C. Norman 93 1-14 Concerns Chris Payne and 2001-02 school year. P. Watson 105 10-11 Concerns 2001-02 school year. P. Watson 110 14-25 Concerns 2002-03 school year. P. Watson 122 11-19 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 105) M. Faucette 196 12-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 197, line 13) 1 Plaintiffs designation of cross-examination testimony is contingent upon the direct examination being stricken. If the designated direct testimony is not stricken, Plaintiff does not want the cross-examination testimony stricken. 2See Footnote 1. 2 WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION M.Faucette 197 1-25 Same as above. M. Faucette 198 1-25 Same as above. M.Faucette 199 116 Same as above. J. Mercer 329 20-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 329, lines 14-16) J. Mercer 330 1-24 Same as above. J. Mercer 338 21-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Brooks' English IV-AP class. J. Mercer 340 18-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 341 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 342 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 343 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 344 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 345 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 346 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 348 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 349 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 1-10 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 11-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Art History-AP. J. Mercer 351 1-21 Same as above. J. Mercer 379 10-25 Cross regarding Brooks. 3 J. Mercer 380 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 381 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 382 1-25 Same as above. 3See Footnote 1. 3 WITNESS J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer -J. Mercer C.Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C.Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne 4See Footnote 1. 5See Footnote 1. PAGE 383 394 395 395 396 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 414 LINES EXPLANATION 1-5 Same as above. 24-25 Concerns his graduation in 2002. 1-10 Same as above. 11-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. 1-9 Same as above. 8-25 Re-cross regarding Brooks.4 1-9 Same as above. 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-10 Same as above. 11-25 Cross concerning his senior year, 2001- 02.5 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-5 Same as above. 6-25 Redirect concerning his senior year, 2001- 02. 4 WITNESS C. Payne C. Payne D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames -D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer 6See Footnote 1. 7See Footnote 1. PAGE 415 416 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 428 429 434 435 436 437 439 453 454 455 456 457 458 LINES EXPLANATION 1-25 Same as above. 10-13 Same as above. 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 12-25 Same as above. 1-17 Same as above. 9-25 Cross regarding Beta Club and National Honor Society.6 1-9 Same as above. 10-25 Cross regarding Pickering. 7 1-2 Same as above. 1-5 Redirect regarding Beta Club. 20-25 Cross regarding Brooks. 8 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 8See Footnote 1. This cross relates to Justin Mercer's testimony. Pam Mercer only discussed the issue generally without specific reference to Brooks, and Plaintiff has not designated that testimony to be stricken. 5 WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION P. Mercer 459 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 460 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 1-11 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 18-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. P. Mercer 462 1-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. J. Carter 497 21-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). J. Carter 498 1-3 Same as above. J. Carter 499 1-16 Same as above. The audit led to recommended staff cuts to be implemented during the 2002-03 school year (seep. 527). J. Carter 501 19-24 Same as above. J. Carter 527 4-11 Cross regarding staff cuts.9 WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the testimony designated herein be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in its Motion to Strike and accompanying brief. 9See Footnote 1. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:~t.:hJ! 2ft John C. Fendley, Jr. 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on August 9, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA FAX and MAIL) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\des-unitary-mot-strike-designations. wpd ~e.;JrJk~ c.Fendley, Jr. ' 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTER.t\"J DISTRICT OF ARK.i-u\"'\\JSAS WESTER.t\"J DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERJNE K.t\"JIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED AUG 1 5 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 14 2002 J 8 AMES W. McCORM.A.CK, CLERK y --------:D=E=P-CL-E_R_K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN The Joshua Intervenors respectfully respond to the plaintiffs designation of testimony to be - stricken. 45 No objection to lines 5-25 46 No objection to lines 1-12 53-57 Testimony should not be stricken; testimony is within time frame; this is supported by pp. 56-57, 426-27; discussion continues regarding when Norman first came to McClellan in 1999 58-59 No date; testimony should stay in; the LRSD should have addressed any problem in cross-examination 60 60 61 61 No date; testimony should stay in No objection to lines 24-25 No objection to line 1 Lines 2-20; do not strike; student vvitnesses were on team during plan; no date -1- - 62 63 64 65 66 70 71 72 91 92 92 93 105 110 122 196 197 198 No date; refers to testimony of Ms. Thames who discusses Ross during DJ's 10th grade year; do not strike No objections to lines 16-2 5; 1-15 do not strike; no date No objection to lines 1-21 No date; testimony .should stay in; Governor school is necessarily before Sr. year Same as 65; do not strike No date; testimony should remain; inference that she would have staiied before 4th year Refers to 2000-01; no objection to lines 20-25 No objection to lines 1-18 No objection to lines 15-25 Lines 1-14; no date; testimony should stay in; this is cross examination; simply a general description of BCC doesn't relate to fact Lines 8-23; no reference to Rutherford on p. 92; typographical error' No reference to Cluis Payne on this page Testimony within time period No objection to lines 14-25 being disregarded This is cross examination mentioning SCEME not being active this year; this testimony stays because it refers to testimony given earlier Relates to testimony within time period; this took place during 2000-2001 school year; signing up for course to be taken during next year No objection to lines 12-25; other testimony should remain; always refers to Dr. Faucette full time as a teacher at Central Testimony should remain because it refers to last year (during relevant time period); 'Assuming that the Plaintiff was referring to page 93, lines 8-23, no objection -2- - 199 329 330 338 340-350 course was clearly taught during 2000-2001 school year; offerings took place in the Spring prior to March 15, 2001 Same as page 198 No date; testimony should remain Statement of background fact information - this includes Jr. year Background information; establishes she was white AP teacher The LRSD's objection should be rejected; had the district made timely objections as contemplated by the rules, Intervenors would have had the opport1mity to consider offering other evidence 3 5 0, lines 1 1-1 5 351 379-380 381 382-383 394 395 395-99 400 401-408 409 410 411-415 416 No date; testimony should remain Same caveat as 340-350 Inference that students over the years, including during plan years, talked about Ms. Brooks Only information on 2001 test should be stricken No objection to lines 24-25 No objection to lines 1-10 Mixed evidence (includes years during plan); deny objection Background information No date; testimony should remain; identifies pattern with Coach Rutherford (407) No date; remain in No date; testimony should remain No date; testimony should remain Background information -, -.)- 418 419 420 421 422 424 425 428 429 434 435 436 437 439 453 454-457 458 459 No date; testimony should remain; this deals with cotmseling; plaintiff utilizes presumption that counselors only deal vvith students their Sr. year regarding college Three years necessarily go back to 1999; used during 3 years No date; testimony should remain; (plaintiff argues in effect that Rutherford did this DJ's Sr. year only) Lines 17-18 clearly include the relevant time period; no way to asse11 all evidence omside period; testimony should remain No date; testimony should remain; reference to earlier years No date; testimony should remain; reference to earlier years (10th \u0026amp; 1 l th grades) Same as 423 Lines 1-2; no date; should remain; line 25 , clearly related to proper period No date; testimony should remain Same as 428; refer pp. to 426-27; counselor told him while in J.O'h grade not to go into Pickering's class; he got out in 11 th grade; this occurred during relevant time period No date; testimony should remain Same as 434 See response top. 429; do not strike Background information; description of counselor No date; testimony should remain No objection to lines 20-25 No objection Testimony within relevant time period Same as 458 -4- - 460 461 Same as above except no objection to lines 6-25 No objection to lines 1-11 461 No objection to lines 18-25 462 No objection 1-25 497 Should remain; audit report confirmed his view 498 No objection to lines 1-3 499 501 Declining enrollment based upon testimony of Carter No objection to lines -19-24 527, lines 4-11 No objection to lines 4-11 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 JolmiW. Walker. AR Bar N~. 64046 I/ ~ JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 7 4-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby ce1iify that a copy of the foregoing t1'ts been senroY/ax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this ~A,- day of ( ,Ll-{t, , 2002: Mr. Clay Fendley FRlDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Wo1ihen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l - /\\ I ) L/ Mr. Dermis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A . 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIFJv1 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Robert Pressman -6- u::.~~ (1- . I,! -~ ll ,,,.,., ti\"\"\u0026gt; Us ~-- -, v1 ~ i::AsTE. . Ol~!Rity~ ,!._C\u0026amp;.~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Rr.,o,.::.TRicr ~#~SAs EASTER.l\"J DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 7 p 2nn-, WESTER.i\"J DIVISION JAMES 1 ~ v J,;L By: IV. ,\\lfcc0Rr~1A'\"'1r ,..,. - \\..o \\, vLc:i~r( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 vVRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTN0.1 , ET Al RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 1 9 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE RESPONSE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension 1mtil August 26, 2002 to file their Proposed Findings of Fact and lugument in Opposition to the LRSD's Request for Unitary Stah1s Regarding the Plan Sections addressed in the hearings conducted from July 22 to July 24, 2002. The grounds for this motion are as follows: 1) Under the schedule established by the Court, the parties had from July 25, 2002 until August 19, 2002 (26 days) to file their responses. 2) The Joshua Intervenors did not receive the transcript of the hearing until the 13th day of this period, on August 6,2002, at approximately 5 :30 p.m. The transcript contains almost all of the evidence offered dming the hearings. 3) In view of the timing of receipt of the transcript, additional time is necessary to address the issues presented in this matter, issues of the highest importance for the City of Little Rock and its residents. 4) The requested extension would cause no apparent harm to the LRSD and the District's counsel have stated that they do not object to the Coun' s granting the requested extension. \\VHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court extend the time for their submission in this matter until not later than August '.:6, 2002. Riob~-iPressma'r{,' Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 ~0\"~\\v~ Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 ' / ,1OHNW. WALKER,P.A. -1723 Broadway Little Rocle Arkansas 7'.2206 (501) 374-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ha~ been sent) ?Y fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on th.is / t., day of //t,. i . 2002: , C  / \\ Ivfr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . / j Mr. De1m1s R. H.a:risen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-34 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Jolu{W. Walker /  RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2002 A OFFICE.OF ~ ESEGREGATIOU,WONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4: 82CV00866-WR W /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER ;~~E AUG 1 9 2002 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Joshua's motion for an extension ohime to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (filed today, August 16) is denied. While a short post-trial brief is certainly acceptable, I did not ask the parties for briefs. So that the preparation of a brief will not interfere with the timely filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the brief can be filed by 11 :00 a.m. on Monday, August 26, 2002. I feel certain that I made it quite clear, that absent highly unusual circumstances, the August 19 deadline would not be extended. In fact, I believe I backed up the deadline from 5 :00 p.m. on August 19 to 11 :00 a.m. I hate to ruin this weekend for counsel, but this is my ruling-request denied, except as it pertains to a post-trial brief. IT IS SO ORDERED this J61h day of August, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE V\\/i lf/RU1-ft 58 A~D/OR~. 7FR9CP ON t l1L!? ?-- . bY__7, ,~c......,,..;....,....- ~\u0026lt;L - 660 u.sfo1{Jm~CQRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS AUG r 9 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. I, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERJNE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED AUG 2 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 2001-2002 school year. Also before the Court is the MRC's request for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' proposed budget for the 2002- 2003 school year. The MRC communicated both budgets to the Court in a letter dated July 31 , 2002 ( attached). The Court will allow the parties ten days from the date of entry of this Order to object to the MRC' s final budget for 2001-2002. The Court will also allow the parties ten days from entry of this Order to object to the MRC's proposed budget for 2002-2003. Ifno objections are filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order approving the final budget for the 2001-2002 school year. If there are no objections, the Court will also enter an Order approving the MRC's proposed budget for 2002-2003 in anticipation that the MRC will file its final (actual) budget for the Court's review at the appropriate time. IT IS SO ORDERED this J.'i_ day of Augus~~~ - - THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON __j .Y-------~---;----~-- ---7\"\"--'--~- ---===-=-- DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNMED :AJp \"''\" - CT JUDGE W!L~RUyE 58ANO/OR~~ /\" , m~1Lf~,- BY~7,,c.~_.....- , 6 6 1 Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main. Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} July 31 , 2002 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: At its July 16, 2002 regular meeting, the Magnet Review Committee listened to a presentation by Little Rock School District and then discussed the interdistrict magnet schools' budget information for the Stipulation magnet schools. The presentation included the final figures for the 2001-02 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2002-03 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 1). No vote was taken at the meeting, and Magnet Review Committee representatives provided the information to their party for vote. A telephone poll was then taken, and the budgets were approved by the Magnet Review Committee by all parties with the exception of the Joshua Intervenors whose representative was hospitalized during budget discussions. FINAL 2001-2002 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $24,802,473.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of $6,473.00, calculated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,831.65 students. Actual attendance records of 3,809.89 students set the final budget figure at $24,621,107.00, and the final budget's per pupil expenditure reduced to $6,462.00, or $11.00 less per pupil than originally budgeted. This final budget reflects an increase of $612.00 per student over the 2000-2001 actual expenditures, and includes the first year of the two-year improvement plan which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee on June 5, 2001. This final 2001-2002 budget also reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2001. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. \"Pursue the Possibilities of ,Uagnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. -2- July 31 , 2002 PROPOSED 2002-2003 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total proposed budget for the 2002-2003 school year is $25,065,942.00, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $6,579.00 and an increase of $117.00 over the 2001-2002 actual expenditures. The increase in the per pupil expenditure includes the costs for the second year of the two-year improvement plan for the Stipulation magnet schools which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee in their meeting on June 5, 2001. Since Little Rock School District is in their third year of teacher contracts, the salaries, fringe benefits, insurance and other employee variables have already been calculated into this proposed budget. Again. included in the Summary portion of Draft 1 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 2001-2002 :finalized budget in the amount of$24,621,107.00, with a per pupil expenditure of $6,462.00, as well as the proposed 2002-2003 budget, both attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the quality of the Stipulation magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, Ll~LlJ?pldh ~di~ Mitchell,~~ Magnet Review Committee SM'DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2001-2002 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Proposed 2002-2003 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $466,336 $466 ,336 6.0 $488,260 STAFF 02 Asst.Prin . 10.0 $596,703 $648,136 9.0 $538,289 03 Specialists 40.2 $1 ,792,248 $1,753,532 40.2 $1,745 ,253 04 Counselors 13.4 $596,823 $580,713 13.4 $634,117 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $296,379 $293,841 6.5 $305,577 06 Art-Perf./Prod . 3.0 $106 ,264 $108,116 3.0 $112,502 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.6 $427,544 $432,970 7.6 $392,782 10 Special Education 9.2 $405 ,041 $396,336 9.2 $433 ,925 11 Gifted 5.4 $250,741 $250,731 5.4 $262,294 12 Classroom 191.8 $8,213 ,397 $8,313 ,748 191 .8 $8,639 ,729 13 Substitutes 0.0 $206,000 $238,047 0.0 $230,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 15.0 $616,631 $657,519 15.0 $658,501 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 308.1 $13,974,107 $14 ,140,023 307.1 $14.441 ,229 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 21.4 $603,031 $603,030 20.4 $538,805 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $245,615 $226.301 6.0 $238,020 17 Custodians 30.0 $462,045 $469,891 30.0 $494,072 18 Information Services 1.0 $54,348 $54,766 1.0 $56,503 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $180,971 $180,193 6.0 $184,840 20 Other-Aides 37.0 $414,622 $460,578 22.8 $439,521 21 Frinqe Benefits(20) xxlCi\u0026lt;xx;i\u0026lt;i( $3,964,711 $3,777,239 xxxxxxxk $4,209,662 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 101.4 $5,925,343 $5,771,997 86.1 $6,161,422 TOTAL (10-20) XXXXXX:l\u0026lt;ii' $19,899.450 $19 ,912.021 xxxxxxi6( $20,602.651 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xiooixxxii' $533,877 $484.737 xxxxiooo( $409,472 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxxx' $40,600 $50,141 xxxxxxxi( $39.500 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxixi\u0026lt;xxi $0 $0 xxxi(iooo( $0 25 Other XXXXX~l( $219,556 $211,221 xxxxi6ocx $146,581 TOTAL (30) xxxxxioo( $794,033 $746,099 xXXJiicxxx $595.553 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:\u0026amp;io\u0026amp;ii $2,000 $265 XXXi\u0026lt;i\u0026lt;*.x $1 ,200 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom xxxxio6o( $554,178 $561,699 xxxxx,~k $556.304 (40) 28 Media xxx:xx.i6oi: $44,100 $42,523 xxxxmot $49. 025 29 Other ~ : $240,368 $265,400 ;xx~; $256,463 TOTAL (40) ,- .. :--. -: -.- .-: 'XXJO\u0026lt;X)00t  $840,646 $869,887 'xxxioooo( $862,992 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx~xxxk $1,340,925 $1,278.872 i\u0026lt;ioooooix: $1,079,371 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. 'xxx:iooo6( $0 $0 XXJOQ\u0026lt;xxX $0 (50) 32 Other xi\u0026lt;xxi\u0026lt;xxX $0 $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $1 ,340,925 $1,278,872 xxxiixxxi( $1 ,079,371 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx:  $18,400 $7,782 xxxxx\u0026gt;ii:xic $1 o,9oo (60) 34 Other :xxxxxioo{ $0 $0 xxxxxxxi( so TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxi $18 ,400 $7,782 xxxxxxxx $10,900 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxioo( $2,994,004 $2,902,639 xxxxxioot $2,548 .816 TOTAL (10-60) 409.5 $22,893,454 $22,814,660 393.2 $23,151,467 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxi6ot $1 ,909.289 $1,806,447 xxxxxxxX $1,914.474 xxxxxxxx: . . $24,802;743 $24,621,107 xxxxxxxx \u0026lt;\u0026lt; $25,065,942 Magnet8udget0203MAGBKOJ.xls summ~rv/H/UH i// :::::: 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $146,503 $62,736 $96,083 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1,639 ,927 $1,630,271 $1 ,664,438 Vocational $32,800 $23,494 $32,800 Athletics $51,559 $51,532 $82,653 Gifted Proorams $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Reading $500 $415 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1 ,500 $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $1 ,909,289 $1,806,447 $1,914,474 Per.Pupil'CostT 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3,831 .65 3,809.89 3,809.89 Total Costs $24,802,743 $24,621 ,107 $25,065,942 Fu~ding sv soiirce 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 State of Arkansas $12,401 ,371 $12,309,755 $12,532,971 LRSO $7,778,140 $7,722,783 $7,860,679 PCSSD $3,013,533 $2,990,129 $3,045,512 NLRSD $1 ,609,698 $1 ,598 ,440 $1 ,626,780 Total Costs $24,802,743 $24,621,107 $25,065,942 MagnetBudget0203MAGBK03.xls ~Wi'r~1~~i?t~~m0m~17(PRf'sD),:::: 'i\\0t;:02\u0026lt; :. 01~02::c :: n: :n:01~02 :'  02,03\\  \u0026lt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; 02.:as:::::::::: iET;' H \\Proposed :n :.:::JAdua1 :)ET:E) :  { LPf.i:fpose'd  \u0026lt; CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 78,368 $ 78,368 1.0 $ 82,856 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 60 ,653 $ 60,653 1.0 $ 62,345 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 325,990 $ 314,857 7.0 $ 326,629 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 90,561 $ 92,869 2.0 $ 98,060 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 50,698 $ 32,178 1.0 $ 34,151 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $ 106,264 $ 108.116 3.0 $ 112,502 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.3 $ 104,959 $ 104,959 1.3 $ 107,932 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 47,078 $ 47,078 1.0 $ 48,389 12 Classroom 31 .6 $ 1,310,270 s 1,301,316 31.6 $ 1,449,702 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 21,000 $ 33,493 0.0 $ 35,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $ 167,761 $ 228,076 5.0 $ 209,935 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 53 .9 $2.363 ,602 $2.401 .963 53 .9 $2,567,501 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 39,512 $ 38,583 2.0 $ 40,328 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 40.205 $ 40.205 1.0 $ 41,318 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 65.834 $ 62.444 4.0 $ 67,078 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9.058 $ 9.130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $ 97.920 $ 112,878 6.0 $ 111,922 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXX)()(XJ\u0026lt;X S658.313 s 643 ,030  ~  $ 721 ,388 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.2 $9 10,842 $906.269 13.2 $991,453 TOTAL (10-20) ~  $3 ,274,444 $3,308,232 xx,dcxixxx $3,558,954  URCHASED 22 Utilities xx;iixxxxx: $ 70 ,544 $ 65 ,320 lxxxxx:boC: $ 65,379 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $ 10,000 $ 4,688 x~ $ 10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements i\u0026amp;xfubJl $0 $0 ~~ $0 25 !Other .XJ0()()00(X. s 15.275 $ 23 .320 xxxXJ00ix $ 17.012 TOTAL (30) .iooooooo\u0026lt;i S95.819 $93.327 xxxxxxxl( $92.391 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office xxxxxxi\u0026lt;.X $0 so X)()O(XXiO( $0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom i\u0026lt;)Ci()O(XXX $ 74.740 s 64 .777 xxxxxxxi( $ 77.236 (40) 28 Media io\u0026lt;xxxxi\u0026amp; $ 7.500 $ 6,160 xxxxxxxx $ 8,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx  $ 51.113 $ 48 .359 io6ooci:xX $ 23 ,250 TOTAL (40) liooixx:io\u0026amp; $133 .353 $119 ,296 xfuxxi\u0026lt;if $108 ,486 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXX)(){XXX. $ 192.083 $ 189.148 xxxxxxi\u0026lt;it $ 374,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxxxi so so : ~ . $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx $0 so XXXXX)OO(' so TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $192.083 $189 ,148 xxxxx:xxx: $374.000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxi\u0026lt;xxxx . $ 2,500 $ 195 XXXXJ00()('  $ 2.500 (60) 34 Other :xxxxxxxxi so so xxxxxxxx  so TOTAL (60) :xxxiooooC:: S2.500 $195 xxxxxx,6( $2.500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxxx  $423.755 S401 .966 xxxxioixx  $577.377 TOTAL (10-60) 69.1 $3 .698 .199 $3.710 .198 67 .1 $4,136.331 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxx~xx: S272.051 S287,129 XXXJO\u0026lt;XXXi $270,748      .: GRANDTOTAL \u0026gt;\u0026lt; xxxxxxx: !::\\! ) $3 ,970,25-0 ... ; \u0026gt;\u0026lt; S3;997';327 xxxxxxxx ,  ,: / $4;407;; 07 : Stipends $30,500 $31,625 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $235,932 $249,542 $254,772 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $152 $159 $159 Plant Services $4,604 $4,898 $4,898 Reading $72 $64 $77 Science $0 $0 $0 English $216 $230 $230 Special Education $575 $612 $612 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $272,051 $287,129 $270,748 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 551 .25 583.17 583.17 Total Costs $3,970,250 $3,997,327 $4,407,078 20.02-03:BUOGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1)  ,  \u0026lt; 01-0-2\\ .- :  :: 01~02: . :-:- : -: :/H /i//01~02+\u0026lt;'  02~0.3\\  /?/)12~03,  //: c~rii,~ Miit.inet Sctfool .,   .. : :    '  F,T:E,) .  / proposed)) r::\u0026gt;:Actua1,.: :.i:: F,T\\ \u0026lt;P.l'opo~~dH:. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 74,672 $ 74,672 1.0 $ 79,028 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 55 ,733 $ 55.733 1.0 $ 59,057 03 Specialists 8.0 $ 341 ,075 $ 335,274 8.0 $ 338.469 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 83 .122 $ 81 ,009 2.0 $ 87,538 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $ 51 ,594 $ 68,943 1.5 $ 70,859 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 so $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 0.0 so so 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 so $0 0.0 so 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 57,166 $ 63 ,805 1.5 $ 67,474 11 Gifted 1.4 $ 63.368 $ 63,358 1.4 $ 67,099 12 Classroom 21 .3 $ 776.272 $ 771 ,194 21 .3 $ 849,791 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 30 .000 $ 30 ,216 0.0 $ 32,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 5.0 $ 213,563 $ 213.563 5.0 $ 224,222 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.7 $1 ,746 ,565 $1,757,767 42.7 $1,875 .537 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 64.212 $ 65,786 3.0 $ 76,090 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 38 ,705 $ 30.717 1.0 $ 32.672 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 60 .923 $ 56 .233 4.0 $ 63.439 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $ 127,929 $ 131 ,568 4.4 $ 98,392 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxfu\u0026amp;i $ 531,481 $ 506,792 )C(X)()~)()t $ 568,219 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $832 ,308 $800,225 12.6 $848,231 TOTAL (10-20) xxxi\u0026lt;XX)O(:' SZ.578.873 52,557,992 xxxxioo\u0026lt;. $2,723,768 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJO(X)OO(X , $ 57,257 $ 49.267 -xxxiooooc $ 52,173 SERVICES 23 Travel l0000\u0026lt;XXX $ 12.000 s 9.350 XXXJOO\u0026lt;:i\u0026lt;)( $ 7,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxxxxxxx $0 so -~  $0 25 Other ~ s 10 .803 $ 14,385 l0000(;l(io( $ 13,320 TOTAL (30) xJOixxxxx S80.060 $73,002 xxx\u0026gt;ooixk $ 72.493 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxx,oo( $0 $0 xxxxxiexx  $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom i\u0026lt;io\u0026amp;xxxx s 74.280 $ 79.393 l\u0026lt;JOO\u0026lt;X:XXX: $ 73 ,941 (40) 28 Media ')()000()()0(' $ 9.000 $ 8,968 ~iot $ 13.100 29 Other )OOQ()(XXX  $ 27 ,901 $ 30.062 . .X l0()()00(X. $ 24.033 TOTAL (40) XJOO()()()(X. S 111 ,181 S118.424 xxxxxxxi $ 111 ,074 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxxx $ 253.800 $ 261 .853 .xiaooo:xx $ 65 .200 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xio:xxxxx i $0 so xxxlOO(xxi $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxi(xx so $0 xxxxxxxii:  $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx : S253.800 $261 ,853 XXXX)OO(X;' $ 65 .200 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )OO{)()()(j()( $ 2,000 $ 3,295 xxxroxX: $ 2.000 (60) 34 Other )00()00:;;,o( $0 so xxxJ\u0026lt;XXioi.,  50 TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx S2.000 $3 .295 xxxxxxxx $ 2.000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxix,( S457.041 S456.574 XJOO\u0026lt;X:XXi( S250,767 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .9 $3 .035 .914 $3,014 ,566 55.3 $2,974,535 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxxx S249.080 $233,435 xxxxxx\u0026gt;ixi $236.409 ..  '\u0026lt;..GRANDTOTAL   . -... :: xxxxxxx  ::::: ) S3.284;994 )\\::: ' $3,248;00:1 :xx:xxxxxxi' :::: : ::: $3~210,944 c~rv.~r.H /\\/)? '\\ 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $26.463 $17,107 $15,643 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $217,439 $211 ,279 $215,707 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proorams $140 $135 $135 Plant Services $4,243 $4,147 $4,147 Readino $66 $54 $65 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $199 $194 $194 Special Education $530 $518 $518 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $249,080 $233,435 $236.409 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 508.04 493.75 493.75 Total Costs $3,284,994 $3,248,001 $3,210,944 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 73 ,036 $ 73,036 1.0 $ 77,260 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 55 ,601 $ 55.601 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 266.044 $ 251 ,648 6.8 $ 276,900 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 31 ,000 $ 40.343 1.0 $ 42,524 05 Media Soec. 1.0 $ 53 ,116 $ 52 .307 1.0 $ 54,599 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 SO 0.0 so 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 SO SO 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $ 89 .448 $ 87,264 2.0 $ 90,833 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 40 .616 $ 40 ,616 1.0 $ 42,805 12 Classroom 16.5 $ 70 1.377 $ 709,180 16.5 $ 724,169 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 14,000 $ 11 .094 0.0 $ 15,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 2.0 $ 87.050 $ 86.769 2.0 $ 90,530 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 32.3 $1,411 ,289 $1 ,407,858 31 .3 $1,414,619 15 Secretaries 1.4 $ 35,431 $ 28 .978 1.4 $ 32.000 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 37,713 $ 37 .517 1.0 $ 39,818 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 46,484 $ 48 .280 3.0 $ 49 ,324 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 6.6 $ 58 ,415 $ 53 ,891 3.2 $ 43,022 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxioiJ\u0026amp; $407,532 $ 364 ,638 )00()()00()( $ 411 ,792 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.2 $594,634 $542,434 8.7 $585,374 TOTAL (10-20) XXX)00(XXi $2,005 .922 $1,950 .292 lOOO\u0026lt;x-xxi( $1 ,999.994 PURCHASED 12-2--+U_t_ili_ti_es ________x _ JO_O O \u0026lt;XX _x~_s_ __3 _1.6_3_3-t-$ __2 _4_._16_3--+x-_x.xx_x:xx.x-;~$---2-4~.7-1_5-i SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxioixx:' $ 2.000 $ 10.291 XXXXloixi( $ 2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxxxio.ixi( $0 $0 :xxxio\u0026amp;i\u0026lt;i( $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other xxxxxxi\u0026lt;i( $ 32.568 $ 8.201 xxxiodiio( $ 10,730 TOTAL (30) J0000\u0026lt;Xi\u0026lt;i( $66 .201 $42.655 xx:idoo:xi( $37,445 26 Principal's Office ooxlciiio( $ 1 .500 $0 'XXXXJOOO( S 1,000 27 Reqular Classroom xxxxxixk $ 34 .050 s 51 ,801 xxxxxxio( s 55.284 28 Media XXXJOOO\u0026lt;X;' $ 3,500 s 1. 138 xxxiooi:iod s 3,500 29 Other xxxxxxxx s 75 .1 45 s 79 .004 :~  $ 27.685 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxi: $114. 195 $131 .943 xio(xioooci $ 87.469 30 Equipment XXXlOOOQ( . $ 254 .554 $ 244,662 XXXJOOOOC. $ 150.341 31 Buildino Repair. etc. xxixxxxx so so xxxx.Jooo( $0 32 Other ~xxxxx $0 $0 x xxxi\u0026amp;xx : $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $254,554 $244.662 x xxxiod\u0026lt;x  $ 150,341 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx s 3,ooo s 1.284 xxxxiooix s 1,500 34 Other XXlOOO'.xx $ o $ o xxxxxxx,( $ o TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx $3 ,000 $1,284 xxxxxxxx $ 1,500 TOTAL (30-60) XJOO\u0026lt;xxi\u0026lt;x $437 .950 $420.544 .XXJ\u0026lt;xx:i(~.i( $276.755 TOTAL (10-60) 44.5 $2,443.872 $2,370 .835 40.0 $2 .276.749 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxxx $198.014 $139.360 XXX)()(Xi\u0026lt;i( $188.118    :  \u0026lt; GRANDT OT:AL' ::.    xxxlOCXJC  / ; $2~641,886i \u0026gt; :  S2;510;1.95 . xx.xxxxxx :/(:$2~464;86.Gi Stipends $65,440 $4,451 $50,440 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $129,490 $131,761 $134,522 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $83 $84 $84 Plant Services $2,527 $2,586 $2,586 Rea di no $39 $34 $40 Science $0 $0 $0 English $118 $121 $121 Special Education $316 $323 $323 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $198.014 $139,360 $188,118 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 302.55 307.92 307.92 Total Costs $2.641 ,886 $2,510,195 $2.464.866 2002-:03 BUD\u0026lt;3c~ PROPOSAL(DRAFT:1) -:, ,:: ,  / :.01;;02/ //i\u0026lt; D1 }2 H /\\i :::::H\"Qt~o2.:::::: :=: 02;;03\\ :.=::: = oi:o3 = :: Wllliams.-/v1agnet School  :- .  .-  \u0026gt; . .-, _-. _. .:  ? \u0026lt; ET,E,/ \u0026gt; Priii:idse.d; \\ ::\\\\Acttia:I //. ,;:i:Fff;E/ \u0026gt;::f'r'ooosed:\u0026gt;, CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 81,976 $ 81 ,976 1.0 $ 84,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 52.481 $ 52.981 1.0 $ 60,557 03 Specialists 5.0 $ 244,846 $ 244,683 5.0 $ 251,669 04 Counselors 1.4 $ 38,750 $ 34,304 1.4 s 64,565 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 44,260 s 43,702 1.0 $ 46 ,565 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 so $0 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 so so 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.1 $ 43,157 $ 43.432 1 .1 $ 45,183 11 Gifted 2.0 $ 99,679 s 99,679 2.0 $ 104,001 12 Classroom 20.0 $ 840 ,860 $ 858,576 20 .0 s 859,254 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 28 .000 s 25,614 0.0 $ 28,000 14 Other-Kinderoarten 3.0 $ 148.257 s 129,111 3.0 $ 133,814 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 S1 .622 .266 $1 ,614,058 35 .5 S1 .677,863 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 65 .041 $ 63,421 3.0 $ 66,364 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 50 .775 s 50,775 1.0 $ 52,192 17 Custodians 3.5 s 49,997 $ 48,074 3.5 $ 53,838 18 Information Services 0.2 s 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $ 47,312 $ 42,424 4.8 $ 59,039 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ioooo\u0026lt;xxx $461 ,695 $ 410,932 xxxiodixx $ 469,708 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.7 $683 ,877 $624,755 12.5 $710,559 TOTAL (10-20) ioooooooc $2.306 .144 S2.238 .814 ioooocxio( $2,388,422 PURCHASED 22 Utilities X)(X)OOO()( $ 49 ,142 s 39,058 xxxxxxxi( $ 45.129 SERVICES 23 Travel X)00()QO(X: $ 3.000 $ 3.902 )00{)()0(){)(. $ 5.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements ~  $0 $0 XXXXXXXX: $0 25 Other XX:XJOOO\u0026lt;X $ 20 ,780 $ 15.386 -~xi $ 17.849 TOTAL (30) XXXlOOO\u0026lt;Xi'. $72,922 $58.346 :~  $ 67,978 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office xlOOO\u0026lt;XXX $0 $0 XXX)OOO(X : $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom XJOOO:xxx $ 77,415 $ 71 ,709 XXlOOOO\u0026lt;X  $ 76 .100 (40) 28 Media xxxiixxxx.: $ 4,600 $ 6.824 'XXXJOO\u0026amp;x' $ 4.600 29 Other iioooooooc:: $ 61 ,411 $ 67,015 xxxxx:xxx  $ 63.527 TOTAL (40) )()(;X)0000(:. $143,426 $145.548 xxioooixx  $ 144,227 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XX:XXlOOO(  $ 127.050 s 135,292 xxxio\u0026amp;xx: $ 106.800 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. i\u0026lt;ioooooix. $0 $0 xxxxxxxx:: $0 (50) 32 Other :xxx)O(;X)O\u0026lt;'. $0 $0 'xxxi66ooc:: $0 TOTAL (50) i\u0026lt;xxxlo:xx:. $127,050 $135,292 i\u0026lt;xxl\u0026lt;XXi\u0026lt;X j $ 106,800 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ioooocxxx $ 1,500 $ 1,093 xxxxxxio( $ 1,500 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxxxx $0 TOTAL (60) xxxxxix;,C: $1 .500 $1 ,093 xioooo\u0026lt;xx $ 1.500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxxx  $344,898 $340,279 xxxxx:xxx  $320,505 TOTAL (10-60) 50.2 $2.651,042 $2.579,093 48.0 $2,708.927 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) XXXX)OO(X:. $210.444 $196.499 xxxxxxxx. $208.875 : \u0026gt;\u0026gt;GRAND TOTAL \u0026gt;  xxxxxxx; .-. : ::$2,861-,48'6:' \u0026lt;:;: -  $2,775;592 XXXXXXXX : , : ---   \u0026lt;: : : $2;9'17;802: 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $10,000 $1 ,623 $10,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $195,782 $190,328 $194,317 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proqrams $126 $122 $122 Plant Services $3,820 $3,736 $3,736 Readinq $60 $48 $58 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $179 $175 $175 Special Education $4 78 $467 $467 xxxxxx x.xxxxx Total Line Items $210.444 $196.499 $208,875 Per P.t.iowcostH\u0026lt; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 457.44 444.79 444.79 Total Costs $2,861.486 $2,775,592 $2,917,802 Q1sQ2 :;:;:-:: \\ 02:-03/ J\\i:\\02~03\u0026lt;:// ..,=: Adliiit: :: \u0026lt; F;T:E\u0026gt;i H\u0026gt;P.rcip(isid :/: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $72,676 $72,676 1.0 $76,900 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $176,705 $227,638 3.0 $156,888 03 Soecialists 3.6 $163.370 $164,345 3.6 $134,194 04 Counselors 3.0 $149,517 5145,587 3.0 $156,487 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $53,116 $53 ,116 1.0 $54,599 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreiqn Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 2.6 $132.513 $133,962 2.6 $138,640 10 Special Education 1.3 $63,233 $65.323 1.3 $69,290 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 49.8 $2.087,522 $2,170,720 49.8 $2,189,224 13 Substitutes 0.0 555,000 $78,616 0.0 $60,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.3 $2,953,651 $3,111,983 65.3 $3,036,222 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $132.784 $128,608 5.0 $126.526 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $41,496 $30,366 1.0 $33,222 17 Custodians 6.0 S79,465 $96 ,858 6.0 $93.824 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,058 $9,130 0.2 $9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $31,361 $32,113 1.0 $33,284 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $32,502 $49,399 2.4 $52,900 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $797,21 3 $837,646 x~ $878,574 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,123,879 $1,184,120 15.6 $1 ,227,749 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxxi( $4.077.530 S4,296, 103 -~ . $4,263.970 PURCHASED 22 Utilities .xxxi\u0026lt;xxxi( S150,786 $149.815 xx:xi\u0026lt;icoo::: $48,500 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxioooc: ' 53.000 $9.496 x~ S4.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxi\u0026lt;x $0 $0 i\u0026lt;xxxloiio( $0 25 Other xxxxxm  S63.345 $73,793 XXJ()(J(XXi( $50,160 TOTAL (30) xxxxx,oo\u0026lt;' S217.131 $233 ,104 .xxxio\u0026amp;xx $102.660 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office l\u0026lt;.XXXXX)(k. $0 $0 XXlOO(;)O(X. $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom xxxxx:ioo( S100.988 $107.387 XXXXJ\u0026lt;XXX: $79,505 (40) 28 Media $7,500 $6.399 ~ ' $4,425 29 Other Xl\u0026lt;XXJ000f $16,016 $21.443 joooo\u0026lt;xxx: $108,888 TOTAL (40) $124.504 $135.228 XXlO\u0026lt;XXXx-: $192.818 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxi\u0026lt;x'' S238,607 $209.170 xx.xxxxxx S291.430 OUTLAY 31 Buildino Repair. etc. :xxi\u0026lt;xxxxit $0 $0 xxxxxxi\u0026lt;x: $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx: $0 so xxxxxxxx : $0 TOTAL (50) ,xxxxxxxxi $238.607 $209,170 -XJ00000()(: 5291,430 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXXXXXX': $2.000 $870 .)()()()(XXXX: $1 .000 (60) 34 Other $0 $0 xxxxxxxx: $0 TOTAL (60) xxxxxx,o( S2.000 $870 XXJ\u0026lt;XXJ(io( $1 .000 TOTAL (30-60) XXXJOQOO( S582.242 $578,372 xxxxxxxx. $587.908 TOTAL (10-60) 80.9 $4.659.772 $4.874,475 80.9 $4,851 ,878 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ,XXXXX:XXJC $417.384 $399,312 xxxxxxxx $427.346 xxxxxxic   \"  S5,077; 1.S6': )\u0026gt; SS;273;787 icicxxx:xx !\\:/ i SS,279,225 1 Stipends $8 ,100 $1 ,508 $4,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $365,944 $358,611 $366,127 Vocational $13,936 $9,943 $13,881 . Athletics $20,924 $20,910 $34,980 Gifted Proorams SO $0 $0 Plant Services $7,141 $7,039 $7,039 Reading $112 $91 $110 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $335 $330 $330 Soecial Education $893 $880 $880 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $417,384 $399,312 $427,346 Per Pifoii cost 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 855.02 838.06 838.06 Total Costs $5 ,077.156 $5 .273,787 $5 .279,225 Per Pupil Ci:isti'/ 200203 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) ': :    01~02i ' /(; Ot--02\u0026lt;\\/ ///01~02 / , \\ 02~03,i ,, \\:!02~3: // Pa~kview.-Magnet Sch'ool    : :. ., '  -F~T;E/ :}/Pr:oposed / \u0026lt;\u0026gt; Actual \u0026gt;  :. F.T;E., //Proposed\\( CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $85,608 $85,608 1.0 $87,960 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $195,530 $195,530 3.0 $199,442 03 Specialists 9.8 $450,923 $442,725 9.8 $417,393 04 Counselors 4.0 $203,873 $186,601 4.0 $184,944 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $43,594 $43 ,594 1.0 $44,804 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 5.0 $295,031 $299,008 5.0 $254,142 10 Special Education 2.0 $47,078 $31 ,553 2.0 $53,213 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 52.6 $2,497,097 $2,502,762 52.6 $2,567,589 13 Substitutes b.O $58,000 $59,013 0.0 $60,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 78.4 $3,876,734 $3,846,394 78.4 $3 ,869,487 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $266,050 $277,654 6.0 $197.498 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,721 $36,721 1.0 $38,798 17 Custodians 9.5 $159,341 $158,002 9.5 $166,569 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,058 $9,119 0.2 $9,408 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $149,610 $148,080 5.0 $151,556 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $50,544 $70,418 2.0 $74,246 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ i $1 ,108,477 $1 ,014,201 ~  $1,159,982 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 24.7 $1 ,779,802 $1,714,194 23.7 $1 ,798,057 TOTAL (10-20) x~ $5,656,536 $5,560,589 ~  $5 ,667,544 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~  $174,515 $157,114 ~  $173,576 SERVICES 23 Travel ~  $10,600 $12,415 ~  $11 ,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other ~  $76,785 $76,136 ~: $37,510 TOTAL (30) ~  $261 ,900 $245,665 ~  $222,586 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office i6oo\u0026lt;l\u0026amp;x $500 $265 ~  $200 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom ~ : $192,705 $186 ,632 ~  $194,238 (40) 28 Media i\u0026lt;xi\u0026lt;ic\u0026amp;x $12,000 $13,033 xiooooo\u0026lt;X' $15,400 29 Other ~ : $8,782 $19 ,516 ~ . $9,080 TOTAL (40) ~ s213,987 s219,447 xx~ s218,918 CAPITAL 30 Equipment x;ioooooc: $264,831 $238 ,747 ~  $91 ,600 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. i\u0026lt;XxxxxX: $0 $0 ~ : $0 (50) 32 Other ~ $0 $0 ~ : $0 TOTAL (50) JOCXi\u0026lt;)i;Xif $264,831 $238,747 ~  $91,600 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXJ(X)(X s7,4oo $1 .045 x.xxxxioo\u0026lt; s2.400 (60) 34 Other xxxxioof so so xioo6ooo\u0026lt;, so TOTAL (60) xxxx.xxx $7,400 $1 ,045 XXXJQOO(X $2,400 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $748,118 $704,904 XXX~XXX: $535.504 TOTAL (10-60) 103.1 $6,404,654 $6,265,493 102.1 $6,203,048 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx S562,317 s5so,712 xxxxxxxx $582,978 ' _._.,_,,,, 'G.RAND TOTAL!''\" : \u0026gt; . 2001-02 2002-03 Stioends $6,000 $6,423 $6,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $495,340 $488,750 $498,993 Vocational $18,864 $13,551 $18,919 Athletics $30,635 $30,621 $47,673 Gifted Programs $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $9,666 $9,594 $9,594 Readinq $151 $124 $150 Science $0 $0 $0 Enalish $453 $450 $450 Soecial Education $1 ,208 $1 ,199 $1 ,199 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $562,317 $550,712 $582,978 PerPli:pi!Cost): 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 1,1 57.35 1,142.19 1,142.19 Total Costs $6 ,966,971 $6,816,205 $6,786,026 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EA.STER.\"J\\i DISTRJCT OF ARK.A_N\"SAS '\\VESTEfu\"J DIVISION I,.JTTLE ROCK SCI;IOOL DISTRJCT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. l, ET AL :tvffi.S. LORENE JOSHU.~ ET AL KATHERil\\TE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED AUG 1 9 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFEND.ANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD'S REQUEST FOR UNITARY STATUS REGARDING THE PLAN SECTIONS INTRODUCTION This case is before the Court upon the LRSD' s motion to be released fi:~m Court supervision and to be released from its remedial obligations to African American students. Upon the liability findings of the District Court in 1987 and in earlier proceedings, the first remedial agreement occurred in 198 9 and was approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990. Between 1990 and 1998, the District Court, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, oversaw remedial proceedings and, as directed by the Court of Appeals, appointed and involved an Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) staff to assist with achievement of the objectives of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. After  repeated hearings before the Court, and upon the urging of the District Court, in January, 1998 the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors entered into a Revised Desegregation and Education Plan before the Court - the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Revised Plan was intended to A: 1JOSHUA..OPP -1- implement the original remedy of school desegregation ordered by the Court. The Revisep Desegregation Plan was to be a minimum of three (3) years in duration and its terms of expected action were generally set forth therein. It was amicipated that upon compliance the school District would petition, with approval of the Joshua Imervenors, the Court for release of the District from Court supervision. The predicate for release was substantial compliance with commitments set forth therein andotherwise required by law as well as ancillary agreements entered into on behalf of the Joshua class between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Department of Education. The District developed a Compliance Committee which consisted of the school superintendent and his senior staff of associate superintendents. The Compliance Committee was assisted by District counsel during its deliberations. The Joshua. Intervenors were not invited or allowed to participate in Compliance Committee deliberations or activities. The District employed two experts with - Joshua's. approval to assist the District in devising remedies as set forth in the Revised Plan, Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross. The experts were not participants of the Compliance Committee. Ultimately, the Compliance Committee developed the Compliance Report dated March 1:5, 2001 which is now before the Court after a second set of hearings before the Honorable William R. \"Bill\" Wilson. The first set of hearings occurred in Juiy, August and November of2001 and were overseen by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief District Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas. The LRSD moved for her recusal in October, 2001. The Court denied recusal. l.Jltirnately, these proceedings were scheduled for January, 2002 but they were delayed upon motion ofJoshua. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright decided in January, 2002 to withdraw as the judge in this case and the case was assigned to the Honorable William R. \"Bill\" Wilson. A:1JOSHUA.OPP -2- l L !, : .J~t Wilson scheduled and held hearings during July, 2002 upon the objections raised by Joshua IC the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. After the hearings, the Court required the parties to 3ubmit contemporaneous findings of fact and conclusions of law and/or statements in further ~-t'!--'u --.: of the parties ' respective positions to the Coun by 1100 a.m., August 19, 2002. This filing repr ,nts the Joshua Intervenors' compliance with the Court's directive. It also summarizes the rebuttal evidence presented byJ oshua through Ms. Ann 11larshall. The ; -ovisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998 wl1.ich are now before the ..:.,,:.:: for review and decision are Sections 2.1, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11, 2.11.1. These sect1 ~dress, among other topics, the obligation to take steps to increase participation of qualified Ai.. an American students in advanced and enriched courses to ensure that there are no barriers to such participation, and to implement programs promoting the success of the students in these courses. These parts of the Plan also address increased participation in extracurricular activities, pn i ion of guidance counseling services in a nondiscriminatory manner and \"more equity in academic h _.-.,rs, awards and scholarships.\" The Joshua Intervenors emphasize the importance of giving attention to the overall picture ,vhich it portrays regarding the System's good faith and other matters. Good faith requires conscious intent by the school District to take actions which promote the ultimate . t,-...,,~ve:-- of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plari. We submit that the ultimate object1 ves of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan necessarily include elimination of the vestiges of rc.cial discrimination and the replacement of those vestiges with policies, programs, practices and procedures which do not lead to resegregation. Joshua submits that the actions of the school district, 2  __  vn in the proceedings before Judge Wright and Judge vVilson, demonstrated that the District -;.1ot acted in good faith in meeting the obligations which are set forth in the A: 1JOSHU4.. OPP January, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. I. THE TESTIMO:NY OFODMDIRECTORA1\"i\"NlVLI\\.RSHALLREBU.TS THE LRSD'S POSITION REGARDING EVALUATIONS Al~ OTHER ELEMENTS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION :tvis. Marshall testified that when the March 15, 2001 Report was presented, the evaluation documents were not available as r~presented therein. [Tr. at 15] Many of the evaluations are still not locatable, especially the final reports [Tr. at 16-17] and could not have been approved by the school board. Dr. Lesley, whose Division of Instruction was responsible for program evaluation, complained to Ms. Marshall about the LRSD  s lack of program evaluations as represented in the Report. [Tr. at 18 (Marshall)] She and Lesley agreed that the quality of the reports was not good. [Tr. at 33] Marshall stated that the District did not mal,;:e \"annual evaluations\" of all programs as LR represented would occur. (Section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Tr. at 20-22] Nor did LR make \"annual assessments\" of all programs or an annual \"listing of programs\" by the assistant superintendent to be assessed annually. [Tr. at 3 7, 39] She further stated that the school district developed a \"Research Agenda\" which further unilaterally narrowed the evaluation requirements of the Plan. The programs which were included in the research agenda were not completed. [Tr. at 3 6] She also stated that the ODM did not any evaluations of programs on behalf of the LRSD. [Tr. at She testified that LRSD staff whom she met with understood the term \"assessment:' when used in the Plan to mean evaluations. Joshua reiterates therefore that the LRSD did not comply with the Plan commitments that it evaluate annually all programs from an effectiveness perspective in order A:\\JOSII'c.JA OPP -4- to determine their efficacy in meeting plan objectives. Joshua now. proceeds to address the areas on which the Court allowed the development of evidence duri_ng the July, 2002 hearings. Joshua now proposed the following facts : A. The Good Faith Requirement of the Section 2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. With respect to Section 2.1 , good faith, the Interim Compliance Report does not address that subject The March 15, 2001 Compliance Report purports to state what the District will do upon unitary status being declared; what has been done by campus leadership teams in the schools; and awards which the District has received known as the Arkansas Quality Award. It does not in the body of the report address the objective ofremedyingthe effects of past discrimination and ensuring that for the future racially discriminatory practices will not be reinstituted. Moreover, the District did not develop a policy with respect to this provision. B. The Obligations to Identify Qualified African American Students and to Promote their Successful Participation in AP and Other Honor and Enriched Courses I. The District's March 2000 and 2001 Compliance Reports 1. The Interim Report indicates that the school shall be active in identifying students for placement for Pre-AP and AP courses. (Interim Report, p. 20). At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses include multiple factors such as \"l. High-level reading comprehension and wTiting skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performa.i.'lce\" and \"4. 'B' average and above in regular-level class.\" [CX. 719 (Reg. IHCC-R); [Tr. at 49 (Norman)]; [Tr. at 560 (l Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that ther:eafter there would be, basically, a free choice A: lJQSh.u...4. OPP -5- assignment into advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman); [Tr. at 473 , 498 (Carter)] 2. The District represents that it approved five new policies which were to ensure that there would be no barriers to African American student participation in advanced courses. (See Interim Report p. 17) Policy IHCC addressed training programs for teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging increasing \"percentages\" of students to participate in advanced placement courses. Policy IHBB addressed \"assessing gifted potential through program designs that are flexible and varied enough to be adaptable to individual student need and through curricular designed to nurture gifted potential. Policy IKC addressed calculating grade point averages and rank and class. Policy IKF established enhanced course requirements with a total of twenty-four required units and increased the rigor of the curriculum Policy IHBEA addressed English as a second language. 3. Joshua submits that none of these policies addressed the subject of identifying and encouraging African ivnerican students to participate in advanced placement courses other than possibly Policy IHCC, the Professional Development Program for Teachers and Counselors. Even IHCC does not address the matter ofidentifying and encouraging increasing \"percentages\" of African A... merican students . 4. Policy IHBB is very general. Policy IKC does not address the issue ofrace. Policy IKF addresses increasing the units required for graduation and stiffens the requirements for honors at graduation time. Policy IHBBA does not apply to African .Americans although the District says that there are several students with African backgrounds who may profit by the English as a second language pro gram. 5. The 2001 Report indicates that Policy IKF \"raised the bar\" even higher so that instead of twenty-four units being required to graduate, students were expected to complete twenty-eight units A: ;JOSHUA.OPP -6- r :i including at least eight Pre-.AP or AP courses. \"Raising the bar\" has not been shown by the District as a program, policy, practice or procedure which reasonably could be expected to either identify or encourage African American students to participate in advanced courses, or to assist them in being successful in advanced courses. Instead \"raising the bar\" in the manner the LRSD did became a \"barrier'; itself for African American children because of their dismal success on the measurement barometers. 6.  The 2001 Report content on pp. 3 0-31 does not demonstrate how .A..frican .American students are benefitted by these policies. 7. The Interim Report identifies Administrative Regulation IHCCR as being ,witten to promote the \"percenta2:e\" of African .A.rn.erican students who enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses. The 2001 Compliance Report does not address Regulation IHCCR. No data are presented to show how this procedure has worked in practice between October 2 l and March 15, 2001. The other regulations are IKC-R, IKF-R2 but they do not address issues relating to African American students in particular. IKC-R addresses rank in class and IKF-R2 relates to general graduation requirements. Both regulations appear to give advantage to white pupils in AP programs. 8. The 2000 Report (CX. 869 at 22-23) that the District v1ill utilize a Quality Index to promote enrollment of African American students in advanced courses in order to make \"data driven\" decisions. The District further represents that the Quality Indicators are routinely disaggregated \"so that progress for each group can be determined.\" The Quality Indicators for the high schools were not presented in the 2001 Report except for the percentages of students taking the ACT The percentage of students taking the .AP makes no reference at all to the race of AP examinees [e.g. 4 3] Moreover, the District did not present the number of minority students earning a score \"19\" on the A: \\JOSJ:FUA. OPP -7- ACT as promised in the Interim Report. The \"average scores\" of racial groups are presented; but the number of A.!,.,. stuqents who score \"19\" or above is not presented. [e.g. 48-49] 9. Disaggregated racial data were also promised with respect to students who earned at least \"3\" on AP exams. The District did not do this. [ e.g. 44] The data presented included \"percentage\" of students earning a \"C\" or above in AP [ e.g. 44] and Pre-.A.P courses in middle and high schools and the University Studies Progra.i:n for one year only. [ e.g. 44-4 7] 10. The District is also remiss in presenting data promised in the 2000 Report regarding the Quality Indicators set forth on page 23 [CX. 869] in its Report of March 15, 2001. For example; reference is made in the 2000 Report regarding the \"percentage\" of students who perform at the \"Advanced\" level on the Grade 4 benchmarks examinations in literacy and math. [p . 237; see also Tr. at 540] The data presented addresses the \"at or above proficient rather than, as promised, the \"advanced\" level, p. 103 (literacy); p. 131 (math). 11 . The data are not disaggregated with respect to gender. The data would allow consideration of the e)ctent to which African American males students fare within the District. 12. Vfhen the District did not present data regarding Advanced students it prevented the parties from malcingjudgments regarding the e)..'ient to which African .American students were being compared to other students. Being \"at or above proficient\" does not disclose the relative relationship benveen non African .American students in comparison to African American students. Moreover, the 2000 Report promised to disclose the \"percentage\" of students who performed in the top ouartile on the SAT9 in reading, language and mathematics. [p. 23] The 2001 report does not disclose the top quartile student performances on the SAT9. The District, however, makes judgments regarding achievement for African A.mericrui students withot use of this \"quality indicator.\" [ e.g. p. 104-105; A:'JOSHUA.OPP -8- t 1...,,, lLli::!.] .J .J ' ' ' 13. Of the. pre grams that were identified in the Interim Report, reference is made by the District to a new middle' school curriculum but the District has always had a specific curriculum for , each grade level. A  ,,. curriculum for middle schools was required because the District changed from a six-three-three em to a five-three-four system in 1997. The purported new curriculum was neither developed or intc1ded for, _African American students. The National Science Foundation Project was listed as a program but in the final report no reference is made to the National Science Foundation results. There 'S no showing that it has increased .African .tvnerican participation in AP courses. 14. The Un;,,0 r~; ..... \" ies Program at Hall High School is identified but it does not address African American student:... Rather it seeks to \"target\" strong students who have the capacity of doing \"college work.\" By its terms, African American students are not targeted I To be eligible for enrollment \"strong\" students 1 ust have either a minimum grade point average of 2. 5 on half of their college preparatory course_ - 2 minimum grade point average of3 . O; or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. The 2001 , rt with the disaggregated data presented by the District shows the race of the average student with a score of21 on the ACT to be white or Asian. Black students are almost four numbers below tha, score. Moreover, the District did not present any charts which showed the number of studen- ~ at 3all who made minimum grade point averages of 2. 5 on at least half of their college preparator, 1rses nor did it enumerate in a chart the number by race of\"strong students who have the capacity o doing college work.\" The Universitv Studies Program_ therefore. tended to favor the stronger sti;,:ients with the better grades. the higher test score averages with means which is another wav of sa .11.: 2: that it favored white students! A:VOSHUA.OPP -9- 15. Page 15 of the 2001 Report reflects the enrollmem by race in the University Studies Program. What began as a majority Black enrollment evolved in one year to clearly a majority white enrollment taken from within a majority Black school. As is shown throughout these :findings, this result could have been anticipated because of the financial costs associated with participation in the University Studies Program. Those costs constitute a barrier to participation. We note that now that the program includes most of Hall'~ white children, the plan is for the course grade to be weighted. [Tr. at 110 (P. Watson)]. 2. The Evidence at the Hearing 16. Dr. Steven Ross is one of the two experts approved by the Joshua Intervenors and hired by the Little Rock School District pursuant to Section 2.1.1 of the Revised Plan. Dr. Ross is a Professor of Educational Research and Director for the Center of Research and Educational Policy at the University of Memphis. Dr. Ross is deeply involved in working with school districts, primarily urban school districts, on how to develop and to evaluate programs and how to address the needs of children at-risk. He has worked with the Memphis, Nashville, Detroit, Atlanta and Little Rock school districts. [Tr. at 538-54l(Ross)] 1 7. Dr. Ross identified an educationally reasonable approach to promoting participation by qualified African American students in advanced placement and other enriched courses and implementing programs to assist these students to be successful. He defined a \"qualified\" student as \"a student who has a reasonable chance of benefitting, a reasonable chance of success.\" Identifying such students would involve use of \"archival data in Little Rock that would have shov.,n the success rates of students in advanced placement courses, in honors courses that are at different levels of achievement on the state test,\" as well as 1;be views of principals and curriculum specialists A: 1JOSHUA.OPP -10- in the District \"who have had experience with African American students and white students who are at lower or higher ynds of the continuum on ability, with suggestions for what type of students ... \" would have a reasonable chance of success if admitted to an advanced class. With this \"combination of science and reason\" he would try to help the school system\" to develop some selective cutoffs or some systematic approach for decidingwhichAfrican_American students were, \"qualified, which were likely to benefit\". For students with test scores at the lower end on statema11dated standardized tests, his advice would be admit them to advanced classes ''on a more selective level,\" that is .. considering factors such as prior grades, family support, and motivation. [Tr. at 542-547 (Ross)] 18 . In the context of section 2. 6.2 of the Plan, addressing \"implement[ ation] [ of] programs to assist African Americans in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses, \" Dr. Ross gave the following testimony [ Tr. at 548]: My approach would be, for students who are entering a course, in advanced course or an honors course, AP course or advanced course, to ensure=-the J(!rm ]Ve use in educational psychology is scaffolding meaning support, because the histmy th.at that student who is at basic hash.ad is struggling to succeed in a regular course. Imagine if you struggle to run a mile, and then all of a sudden you asked to run five miles. Chances are you are not going to do better at that five mi !es; you are going to struggle more. So I would want to provide support systems that can do everything possible to ensure that students who we consider qual~fied can benefit. Examples would be Saturday classes, which cn'e used in a lot cf districts, extended day, peer coaching, smaller class sizes, computer -assisted instruction that gives extra support, programs with families where parents are not taught to tutor, but parents are taught how to help their children get the work done at home, courses on how to study. Th.ere 's a range of support systems that can increase the chances that  an at risk child or adolescent can do well in advanced courses. 19. Dr. Ross testified that he wound not advocate placing students at the lowest leveis of state test courses into advanced placement courses without the kinds of programs he described. [Tr. A: VOSHUA. OPP -11 - at 549] 20. The approach described by Dr. Ross grows out of the provision in Section2.6 of the Plan for promoting participation of \"qualified\" African American students in advanced and .enriched courses a.rid the provision of Section 2.6.2 of the Plan which requires implementation of programs to assist these students \"in being successful\" in the enriched and advanced courses. The paragraphs which follow show: (a) the activiti~s required of the LRSD to promote additional participation of African American students in advanced programing were not carried out, or, were cursory in nature; (b) LRSD has not demonstrated an .increase in participation in advanced and enriched classes, comparing the totality of such programming prior to and during the Plan period; ( c) LRSD adopted, during the Plan period, criteria for admission to Pre-.4.P and AP classes which allow any student regardless of test scores and prior performance to select such classes, without an individualized consideration of the student's ability to benefit; and (d) LRSD had, during the Plan period, clearly inadequate \"scaffolding\" to assist lower performing students \"in being successful\" in advanced and enriched classes. 21 . The LRSD asserted that it fulfilled its obligation of \"a training program during each of the neA'1 three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African American students participation .... \" in advanced placement and honors and enriched courses. [Section 2.6.1] However, there was no evidence of such \"a training program\" for\" teachers and counselors\" \"during of the .. three years of [the Plan.]\"; [Tr. at 186-89 (Faucette)] 22. Ms. Patricia Watson has served as a guidarice counselor in the LRSD for approximately 28 years, 23 years at Central and 5 years at Hall. She was the lead counselor at Hall during the term of the Plan. [Tr. at 100] She did not recall any specific \"training program\" each year of the Revised A. 1JOSHUA. OPP -12- 1') f. -  Desegregation and Education Plan which was designed to train \"counselors in encouragmg pa.i.--ricipation of African American students\" in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 101] Ms. Watson further testified that although the director of Guidance and Counseling for the LRSD conducted monthly in-service training sessions between 1998 and 2001 , she could not recall any training relating to encouraging participation of African Americans in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 103 -04] 23. When the subject matter of encouraging participation of i\\frican American students in advanced and enriched courses was raised by a LRSD administrator, the presentation was brief and proforma [Tr. at 90 (C. Norman)]; [Tr. at 102 (P . Watson); [Tr. at 473 , 490 (J. Carter)] 24. Prior to the advent of the Revised Plan, and continuing through the first year of the Plan, the types of advanced and enriched programming offered in the LRSD included advanced placement classes, as well as honors and enriched classes. Effective with the second year of the Plan (1999- 2000), LRSD utilized the categories of\"Pre-AP\" and \"AP\"_to encompass the prior categories of AP, honors and enriched. [Tr. at 3 76, 11/20/01 (Lesley); CX. 869, p. 18, 29] An accurate determination of any progress in increasing participation of .African American students in advanced and enriched programming requires consideration of this change. Merely reclassifying students who were in honors and enriched classes as advanced classes does not qualify as real progress in attaining the goal of Section 2.6. The District did not cite any actions that it had taken to promote an increase in participation of .African .American students in advanced programs. The District's plan is to increase the number of AP courses and Pre-.41' courses that are available and to cutout other courses so that the result would be more students would be forced to take Pre-AP and AP courses. 25. As evidenced by p. 3 8 of the March, 2001 Report, the greatest numerical increase of African .A.merican pupils in .41' courses, 154, ocqmed when honors and enriched courses were ended A:'JOSHUA.OPP -13 - after the 1998-99 school year. At the same time, the \"other\" numbers increased by 160, from 936 to 1096. This mefil!S that the proportion of white students enrolled in .AP courses actually increased. The chart on p. 38 of the 2001 Report reflects that African American students assigned to .AP courses fell from 37% in 1997-98 to 35% in 2000-01. The reality therefore is that whatever changes took place in AP, the disparity which existed in 1998 continued at least through Ivfarch, 2001 . ' 26. At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre- .AP and AP courses included multiple factors such as \"1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performance\" and \"4. 'B ' average and above in regular-level class.\" [CX 719 (Reg. IHCC-R; Tr. at 49 (Norman); Tr. at 560 (J. Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that thereafter there would be, basically, a free choice of the more rigorous advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman); Tr. at 473 , 498 (Carter)] 27. In 2000-01 , 65% of the enrollment in AP courses was white [Tr. at 74 7 (Lesley)] roughly double the proportion of white enrollment in the LRSD. The free choice approach promoted the attendance of additional white students in classes disproportionately white. 28. As indicated, Dr. Ross testified that the availability of a BROAD RANGE OF Sl.JPPORT PROGRAM (\"SCAFFOLDING\") IS A.N ESSENTIAL ELElVlENT OF AN INl:TIATIVE WHICH PLACES POORL YPERFORMING STUDENTS IN ADV A.\"NCED Ai\"'i-U ENRICHED COURSES. See par. 18. LRSD vVRITTEN STA.l\"IDARDS A.RE TO THE SAlvlE EFFECT [CX. 719, Policy IHBDi\\., IHBDA-R, TIIBDA-R2]. However, LRSD's implementation fo its standards, required as to advanced and enriched courses by Section 2.6.2 falls short. (a) August 1, 2001 during the hearing conducted by Judge Wright, Associate A-VOSHUA.OPP -14-   Superintendent for Instruction and Bonnie Lesley and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Sup.erintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of Student Academic Improvement Plans (Si\\IPs), or other . . interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards. [Tr. 8-1-01 , at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (lviitchell); at 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] (b) The LRSD provided no information on the actual availability of SAIPs for poorly performing students entering .Pre-_A.P and AP courses during the term of the Revised Plan, during the most recent hearing. ( c) The support programs actually available for Pre-_A.P and AP students, identified at the hearing, were well short of those identified as necessary by Dr. Ross and the LRSD in regulation IHBDA-R. [Tr. at 93, 95, (C Norman); 49 1-92, .523, 524 (J. Carter); 563-68 (J. Mosby); 743-44 (Lesley)] C. The Obligation to Address Barriers to Participation In AP and Honors and Enriched Courses 29. During the .three-year Plan period, the four Associate Superintendents served as the District's Compliance Committee with respect to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs coordinated their efforts. The group was to oversee the overall compliance effort with the terms of the Plan, with each associate retaining primary- responsibility for those aspects of system operations within his/her normal area of responsibility. The compliance committee had the primary responsibility for the identification and removal ofbarriers to participation in advanced and enriched courses (and extracurricular activities). [Tr. at 130 (Babbs)]; A: \\.JOSHUA. OPP -15- (See also Court Ex. 544; CX. Ex. 869 (March 2000 Report) at 1-2]. 3 0. The LRSD described the compliance committee and the responsibilities of the associate superintendents as follows in the March 2000 Compliance Report (at 1-2, emphasis added): The Associate Superintendents of Administrative Sen1ices, Instruction, Operations, and School Services and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent comprise the \"Compliance cmd quality Assurance Committee. \" The committee has responsibility for the development, implementation, oversig,1t, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program includes any programs, policies, and/or procedures iiecessmy to ensure that the District.f11[fills all of its obligations under the Revised Plan. n1e committee meets weekly to discuss compliance issues and to discuss plan implementation in their respective areas. The compliance philosophy is based cm internalizing the Revised Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For exmnple, the instruction division is responsible for integrating the Revised Plan's requirements into development of the curriculum, staff development, and other similar junctions of that division. 171e associate superintendent who heads the division is the responsible person for the components of the Revised Plan that me appropriate.for his/her division. Through the internalization of the philosophy and the integration of the Revised Plan into the District's structure, the respective divisions proactively monitor compliance. The associa~e superintenrjents are responsible for ta!ci.ng appropriate action with re.spect to incidents of non-compliance and taking steps to prevent.future similar incidents of non-compliance. a. The Limited Assignment of Black Teachers to Advanced and Enriched Courses 3 1. The LRSD administrators who studied the existence of potential barriers to greater African American participation in AP classes identified the paucity of African American teachers as relevant. [Tr. at 71-72, 694-95 (Lesley)]; See also [Tr. at 184-86 (Faucette)] .Although significant progress could have been made by the manner in which teachers were assigned to courses by principals, [Tr. at 695 (Lesley)]; [Tr. at 46 (Norman)]; [Tr. at 517 (Carter)], little or nothing has been done. In Central High School, the \"flagship school\" [Tr. at 612 (Daugherty)] most of the .AP A:iJOSHUA.OPP -16- teachers were white. [Tr. at 291-296 (R. Horton); Tr. at 321,323 , 324 (C. Mercer); Tr. at 336-37, 338-339, 3.53~( J. fyforcer)] Black teachers were excluded, almost entirely, from advanced English teaching assignments [Tr. at 175-76, 78, 179-80 (Faucette)] The LRSD touts its participation in the \"Teacher of Color program.\" [Tr. at 671-72 (Lesley)] However, LRSD's evidence shows its participation in this non disuict sponsored program did not begin until the 2001-2002 school year. [Tr. at 736 (Lesley)] Moreover, the System could have only seven participants per year and the evidence was of high school placement of teachers only at Hall with, significantly, no participation at Central. [Tr. at 736-3 7 (Lesley)] [Ex. 826] . b. The Hostile Treatment of African American Students in Advanced Courses I 3 3. Black students emolled in Pre-AP and AP classes have been subjected to a variety of forms of harassment and other hostile behaviors by white teachers. [Tr. at 57., 70 (Norman); Tr. at - 102-3, 111-112 (P. Watson); Tr. at 291-93, 312 (R. Horton); Tr. at 321 -22 (C. Mercer)_; Tr. at 336- 38 (J. Mercer); Tr. at 401-406 (C. Payne); Tr. at 427-31 (D.J. Thames); Tr. at 440-442 (A. Thames)] Dr. Faucette also testified that counselors intentionally did not guide African American students into higher level classes. [Tr. at 208] 34. The impact of the harassment and hostile behavior identified in paragraph (33), supra, extends beyond the particular black student who is its victim. It is observed by other students in the class. Moreover, such incidents are a topic of discussion among students. [Tr. at 342 (J. Mercer); at 5 7 6 (J. Mosby)] The inevitable consequence of the harassment is to identify advanced and emiched courses as a hostile environment for black students and one which they should shun. [Tr. at 70 (C. Norm.an); Tr. at 632, 651-52 (Roberts)] A. 1JOSHUA.OPP -17- c. The Multiple Barriers to Access to the University Studies Prozram 3 5. The L~D and the university of _Arkansas at Little Rock jointly operate within the Hall High School facility the University Studies Program. Courses are \"co-tau!Zht bv Hall Hi!Zh School teachers\" and UALR personnel. [CX 869 (March 2000 Report) at 27] [underlining added for emphasis] This program began functioning in 1999-2000. Students are informed of this option on the course selection sheets distributed by the school system\" Grade 11-12 students may take a variety of courses for which they receive both high and college credit.\" [March 2000 at 27] The program is recognized by the LRSD to provide advanced or enriched courses as described in Section 2.6 of the revised plan. [CX 870 (March 2001 Report) at 46; [Tr. at 734 (Lesley)] [Two teachers per course represent a strong commitment to promoting the academic achievements of already high achieving students.] 36. In order to emoll in this program, a student must pay for each course taken one half of the nonnal tuition charged for the comparable course at UALR and for related expenses. [Tr . at l 09- 110 (P . Watson)]; [Tr. at 730 (Lesley)] 37. \"To be eligible to participate [in the University Studies Program], students must have a minimum grade point average of 2.5 on at least 50% of the college preparatory courses; or a minimum overall grade average of 3. 0; or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT.\" [March 2000 Report at 2 7] 38. The evidence cited in paragraphs 3~ through 37, infra, and 39 through 44, supra, shows that the program operates in a manner which promotes racial segregation within Hall High School, due in large part to the financial barriers created by the tuition and related expenses requirement and by the ACT score requirement. A. \\JOSHUA.. OPP -18- 39. The enrollment of Hall High School was approximately 80 to 90% as of 2001 -2002 school year. [Tr. at 106 (P Wat son)] The racial makeup of the University studies courses was as follows in the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 : 99-00 00-01 Total Enrollment 136 162 AA(%) 79(58%) 57(35%) Non A.A.(%) In Cour ses 57(42%) 105(65%) 40. These data show ( a) in 2000-2001 the number of African American students participating declined by 22, 28%; (b) in 2000-2001 the number of non A.frican American students increased by 48, 60%; (c) in 1999-2000, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by two times; ( d) in 2000-2001, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by three times; ( e) the in-school segregative effect of the program greatly increased in the second year of its operation. [March 2001 Report at 46] 41. TheLRSD reported ACT results by race for the years l. 997-1998; 1998-1999; 1999-2000 in the March 15, 2001 Report. [at 48] These data show that the average \"composite score\" (on the four sections of the ACT for white students for the three school years was respectively; 22.2, 22.5. and 21. 5. In contrast, the average \"composite score\" for African American students for these three years was 17.2, 17.2, and 17.3. These data provide some evidence the ACT of the alternative criterion for entry into the University Studies Program had significant racial impact. 42. The LRSD did not include in either the March 2000 or March 2001 Report data on grade point averages at Hall High School which would allow an analysis of the racial impact if any of the GPA standards selected for use in admission to the University Studies Program. A:JOSHUA .. OPP -19- 43 . Two types of evidence in the record provide a basis for concluding that the racially - segregated enro~ent of the University Studies Program is attributed at least in part to the requirement that students pay partial tuition. (a) Povehy Index in LRSD - According to an exhibit offered in this case by the LRSD, in the three years of the Revised Plan, 68% of the Black students enrolled in the District and 22-24% of the white students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Court Ex. 73 l (b) Many witnesses agree9 that the tuition requirement would have a racial impact in the LRSD in view of the pattern of family income by race. [Tr.110 at 110 P. Watson)]; [Tr. at 532(J. Carter)]; [Tr. at 602 (Strickland)]; [Tr. at 605-610(Daughtery)]; [Tr. at 624-627(Roberts)]; [Tr. at 732 (Lesley)] 44. The March 200 l Report ( at 46) sets forth the racial makeup of the University Studies courses for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 . However, neither the March 2000 Report nor the March 2001 Report contain any indication that the LRSD considered or analyzed of or analyzed vvhether the admission and tuition requirements of the University Studies Program promoted segregation. This silence occurs in the face of Section 2.1 (\" .. to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools\" and Section 2.6 \" .. to ensure that there are no barriers to qualified African A,.mericans .. '} 45 . In the instance of the University Studies Program, there is no evidence of the Compliance Committee, or Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley \"proactively monitor[ing] compliance.\" d. Other Barriers and Broken Promises as Shown bv the March. 2000 and A: IJOSH[h!... OPP -20- 2001 Reports 46. The 2qoo Report addressed the Talent Development Plan as a program to ensure the enrollment \"high performing students in advanced classes.\" [Tr. at 28-30] There is no reference .made in the final rep6rt of the Talent Development Plan. The Talent Development Plan has not been demonstrated to be in existence in practice. The principal of Franklin School, Ethel Dunbar, [Tr. at 588] and Pcl-t Watson, Counselor-at Hall High School [Tr at 104-105], were unaware of this program. This is likely because the Talent Development Plan was repudiated by Dr. Lesley. It involved a commitment to a project called AVID. Project AVID which was encompassed with the Talent Development Plan but has never been implemented because of its purported high costs and because the District did not get a grant to fund it [Tr. at 7 4 7 (Lesley)] The 2001 report makes no reference to either the Talent Development Plan or Project AVID . The 2000 Interim Report, in lamenting the fact that it did not get an AVID grant said, \"these programs would have assisted the . . District in its goal of increasing minority participation in higher level courses, including the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level.\" (p. 30) 4 7. The Interim Report also promised implementation of an Accelerated Academic Student Academic Program (AS.A.P), a prin1ary purpose of which was to radicallv narrow the achievement i;rap between Afucan American and white students. (p. 31). The 2001 Report makes no reference to the ASAP program, hov,rever, ASAP vanished. On p. 33 of the Interim Report, there is a note that \"all program components are incorporated in t4is draft.\" Later on the page, the olan was identified as beini;r tentative and dependent uoon submittirnr a oroposal for fundini;r from the federal i;rovernment. On p. 34, it is clear that it is simply a proposal: \"the District will also investigate other possible sources of funds for the other four middle schools.\" A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -21 - 48. The 2000 Report proposed an English I/II Pre-AP Workshop on a voluntary basis for teachers. This prop~sal did not focus uoon African American students in oarticular. It allowed high schools the option, for two vears. of offering double period English program at both the regular and Pre-AP levels. The 2001 report indicates that the workshop was instituted at several schools during 2000-01' and that as ofJanuary, 2001 , the optional program would continue at one of the schools through the ne;,.1: school year. Principal Carter of McClellan indicated that his teachers chose not to participate in this program. This was not a required program and cannot be said as a district initiative designed to promote and increase partjcipation in Al' and Pre-Al' programs. The District presented no data which reflected the benefits of this workshop to African .American Students. [Tr. at 525-526 (J. Carter)] 49. The 2001 Report mal\u0026lt;:es reference to a \"International Baccalaureate Programme\" at Cloverdale lvliddle and McClellan High Schools. [p. 34] The IBP was proffered as a program for increasing African .American participation in AP and Pre-Al' courses. According to Principal Carter, the program was designed to promote enrollment of African American children into a more rigorous curriculum and to attract white students to the school. It was dependent upon non district funds for its creation and operation. The District wrote that \"If this grant is funded . . the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category of advanced and challenging courses available to students and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed along with the AP and Pre-.A.P and University courses. (p. 34). 50. The IBP proITTam does not overate and was not funded I 1. Principal Carter testified that Dr. Bonnie Lesley opposed the program because she thought it was not a \"good mix\" for the McClellan student body. [Tr. at 529, 530] Dr. Lesley did not contradict :i\\1r. Carter's statement! A: ;JOSHUA.OPP -22- 51. The District's support for the University Studies Program whi~h favors white students is to be compared, the .IBP program which in design gave some favor to Black children. The administration strongly supported one with District funds and local college support but it did not support the other one, the IBM, with financial or administrative level support. 52. In the 2001 Report, the District notes that in the 2000-2001 school year it added two AP courses, Human Geography and Economics in order to promote African _American participation in AP course. (p. 33) The Human Geography program which was offered began as a majority white program, nine whites, five Blacks (se~ p. 38). The Economics program apparently did not \"make\" in 2000-2001 because there were no students reported as being in the class. Justin Mercer attempted during the 2000-20001 school term to take the course and was refused because there was no one to teach it. [Tr. at 352, 357] (Seep. 33) When one reviews the AP courses added, World History, Physics II, Science Pre-AP and Advanced Science/Theoretical II. Moreover, Advanced Science - Theoretical II, it is clear they were not being added so as attract and benefit more African American students. These appear college focused, i e, \"Central College.\" [Tr. at 365-66 (J. Iviercer)] 53. The LRSD asserted that it had fulfilled its obligation of Section 2.6.2 by \"imolementim2: programs to assist African American students to be successful in . and advanced placement courses. The Interim Report, (Page 39-40) does not identify any policies that it developed to assist African American students in being successful. The section speaks only to \"proQ:rams.\" The programs which are listed are College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP); Academic Enrichment and Gified in Summer (AEGIS); South East Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME); SMART, a summer program for about 200 students; School Based Student Support Teams; and English I and II Workshop - Pre-AP, CPEP and _I\\EGIS are not held out as being for the A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -23- purpose of assisting _African Americans in being successful in advanced courses. SECJ:vlE was a grant program for the purpose of preparing and motivating students in technical fields It had a goal of increasing the pool of minorities who were qualified for college studies in engineering, math and science. S:tvlART does not identify the students who will be served. The English Pre-AP workshops were optional. The school based support teams had the purpose of monitoring student achievement and providing support and necessary interventions to students at-risk of failure. The District did not present any monitoring reports are results of achievement regarding the school based support teams. 54. The March 15, 2001 Report did not address any of the programs identified in the Interim Report. Instead, it talks about gifted and talented programs specialists and facilitators. These programs are for the teachers who are provided opportunities for professional growth, and receive a publication known as Sharing the Good News. Because of their outlined training those teachers are expected to become resources for other teachers. 55. Other possible programs presented in the 2001 Report are briefly discussed again under this subsection a) Two courses, Human Geography and Economics were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001. World History and Physics II were added to the curriculum for 2002. Advanced Science/Theortical Research II was added to the curriculum for 2001. There is no showing of how these courses are directed toward the success in them for iLA. students. [CX 870, p. 33] b) The proposed International Baccalaureate Programme (IBP) ,;vas contingent upon finding which did not occur between 1998-2001 [e.g. pp. 33-34] (c) Middle School research and writing Pre-AP are not held out as programs to assist A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -24- (d) African A.merican students. Fiigl:). School Reading and Wri1ingWorksho-p Iis an optional program which Fair, Hall and McClellan opted to include in their schedules. There is no representation that the workshop was intended to assist A... frican American students at being successful in advanced courses. ( e) Teachers and couns~lor training has a goal to provide teachers with training to ensure that all students are successful in upper level courses. The funds for this program are provided by the State of Arkansas. This in-sen:ice training is required by the Arkansas Department of Education. (f) The 2001 Report refers to revision of Policy IKF/General Ed Graduation Requirements. This policy raised the recommended number of units for graduation to \"28\" including at least \"8 11 Pre-.A.P or A.P courses. There is no showing of how this (g) - will benefit African American students in being successful in AP courses. [ e.g. p. 30] The policies, programs and procedures in both the 2000 and 2001 Reports represent recitation of normal school activities, \"raising the bar\" for graduation and creating courses that will favor students in advanced courses who are already high achievers. The courses added may substitute for college courses. (h) ,There are no programs identified in either which are specifically designed to African iunerican students in being successful in advanced placement during the regular school year. (i) The SEC:ME Program operated for one year. [Tr. at 105 (P. Watson)] G) The other programs either were not implememed or were not supported by use of any A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -25- I data in either report. [e.g. ex 869, pp. 40-41 , ex 870, pp. 31-50] (k) The_ summer programs CPEP, SMART and .AEGIS have limi,ed enrolled. [Tr. at 73 8, 747 (Lesley)] (1) The District did not identify and present data which delineated participation in any \"scaffolding\" or \"support\" programs such as those described by Dr. Ross as being necessary to assist African .American students in being successful in advanced courses. [Tr. at 548,549 (Ross)] [See also Tr. at 465, 480 .. 490,492,499, 523,529 (Carter); Tr. at 88, 93, 95 (Non:nan); Tr. at 564, 566, 576 (Mosby); Tr. at 585 (Dunbar); Tr. at 747 (Lesley)] D. The Obligations to Promote Participation of Qualified African Americans in Extracurricular Activities 56. With respect to Section 2. 6, the lVIarcb 15, 2001 Report purports to show an increase in African American extracurricular participation between l. 997-98 and 1999-00, p. 2 7. The figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The general increase represents 122% for African Americans and 129% for non African American students. With respect to the District's chart on p. 28 regarding co-curricular acti,,ity participation, the aggregated data show an African American increase from 2579 to 3988. That reflects a 54.6~o increase. Non black participation, however, increased from 1222 to 1864, a percentage increase of 52.5%. The extracurricular activity and co-curricular activity general panici.pation therefore remained steady. 57. By LRSD presenting aggregated data, [Tr. at 740 (Lesley); CX. 747 [Babbs] the Court is not in a position to effectively determine whether the data reflect actual improvement in African .American participation in the respective schools. Accordingly, the anecdotal testimony of witnesses A: \\JOSHUA. OPP -26- d' becomes more relevant ,vi.th respect to determining whether the policies, programs or procedures which the District ~eveloped are working. The policies which the LRSD developed purportedly to meet the requirements of the Plan represent either revision of existing purported policies or codification of practices long in force. The policies which are applicable to the instant proceeding are: a) Policy JJR - Student Co-Curricular Exnacurricular Activities [CX Ex. 719] This policy requires that \"when disparities are identified in co-curricular activities, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where possible.\" b) Policy JJIB -R 1- High Schooi Interscholastic Athletics  Cheerleading Drill TeanvPep Club [CX Ex. 719] This policy also requires that \"when racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate. It is also requires (5) that transportation will be provided to all students participating in athletic and spirit group activities.\" [Policy JJIB -R2 applies to the middle schools and essentially repeats the provision 111 JJIB-Rl] c) Policy JBA.-R NonDicrimination in Programs and Activities [CX Ex. 719] This policy requires each school to develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation.\" It also requires the development and implementation of \"a plan for nondiscrimination in programs and activities at each school\" This policy does not include the required \"improvement plan\" notes in policies JJR and JJIB-Rl and R-2] d) Policy DFD-R2 Athletic Gate Rec~ipts cmd Admissions [ CX Ex 719] . A:'JOSHUA.OPP -27- This policy requires that \"in cooperation with the Activities Advisory Board (AAB ), there will be a compr~hensive athletic and activities plan developed by the District to address the needs of the students .... \" The steering committee will serve as staff providing technical assistance and support to the A.AB .\" 58. The District staff determined that there were disparities which they identified in cocurricular and e\".1:racurricular activities.1 The District staff who addressed the subject include the Associate Superintendent for Student Services, Sadie lviitchell, the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, Dr. Marian Lacey, Jodie Carter, Principal of McClellan High School, 1'1ls. Cassandra Norman, Principal ofFair High School, and Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. These staff members acknowledged an awareness of racially identifiable activities and of disparities: Ms. Mitchell [Tr. at 261 , 262, 268, 269]; Dr. Lacey [Tr. at 790, 791]; Principal Carter [Tr. at 474,492, 493 , 502, 503]; Principal Norman [Tr. at 71, 72]; Mr. Babbs [Tr. at 13 3] . Other witnesses who testified that there were racial disparities with respect to curricular and ex\"1:racurricular activities were Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312, 313]; Michael Faucette, [Tr. at 199, 200, 201 , 203-206]; Crystal Mercer, a student at Central High School [Tr. at 322, 323]; Justin Mercer [Tr. at 386, 387, 388]. 59. The March 15, 2001 Report contains (at 28) under the heading Activities Advisory Board, the following content: \"At the ti.me of the District 's Interim Complicmce Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advis01y Board ('A.AB ') for the pwpose of 1The activities identified included, inter alia, baseball, cheerleaders, debate, future problem solvers, odyssey of the mind, student newspaper, mock trial, orchestra, quiz bowl, soccer, swim team, tennis, volleyball and yearbook staff. [Tr. at 136, 133-35 (Babbs); Tr. at 199-200, 203 (Faucette); Tr. at 261 -262 (Mitchell); Tr. at 358-360, 362-364 (Mercer)] A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -28- I} promoting, supporting and enhancing extracurricular activities cmd co-curricular activities at all schools. Th.e _A_,4B, comprised of District staff, pca-ents, student and convnzmi-ty representatives, be gem monthly meetings in April of 2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. Th.e focus of these discussion has been on a disvropordnate number of African American students who do not hm,e the financial resoUJ-ces to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and imvlementation include ... fun din'\u0026lt;!. accessibilitv~. Each caea has been discussed in connection with incl'easing swdentpca-ti.cipation with emphasis on assuring African American participation. [underlining added for emphasis J 60. Despite the finding of ~he AAB, there was no system budget account to assist a student for whom family finances was a barrier for participation in extracurricular activities. [Tr. at 802 (Dr. Lacey).] The system addressed the. acknowledged program by a patchwork of activities, not represented to function in all schools; moreover, Dr. Lacey testified that there was no systematic effort to publicize the availability of these funds. Associate Superintendent Babbs, who coordinated the efforts of the Compliance Committee, could identify no substantial activity undertaken by that body. [Tr. at 144, 146 (Babbs) - 3 to 5] 61. The District is obliged to address barriers to participation of qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities. Despite the LRSD's consistent emphasis on the differences between family incomes in the system's white and African families [e. 2: ., Poverty Income information CX 731], the record reveals a lack of any systematic effort to address financial barriers within the meaning of Section 2.6. 62. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, never developed a plan for remedying disparities Oi imbalances in participation in exirn or co-curricular activities. [Tr. at 262] She left this to the discretion of the principals. But she excused their inaction by \"blaming the victim.\" They have \"choice\" she said. [Tr. at 268]. 63. Sadie Iviitchell was responsible for \"proactively monitoring compliance\" and \"taking A.\\JOSHUA.OPP -29- - appropriate action with respect to incidents ofnon-compliance . ... \" [Tr. a1 136, 138 (Babbs)] Ms. I:vlitchell testified to her shirking this responsibility [Tr. at 262-263 , emphasis added]: Q. You are awm-e. Let's just talk about the reality You were cnvare -you have , not heard the testimony. But you are cnvme, for instance, quiz bowl and debate, Odyssey of the 1vfind, vm-ious activities were all white, were you not? J A. Yes. Q. I see. Did you develop aplcmfor changing that? .. A. I did not develop a plan. The buildh1g principal did Q. Well, in the three years that the plan was in operation before the report seeking release from unitary status, did you have any occasion to prepare any writing reflecting that was shared with the Joshua lntervenors or the public reflecting what actions you would take to change those patt.ems? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I did not, because Joshua did not request a report through the formal compliance complcrint. You are suggesting that you only prepare requests or reports at Joshua's request, are you? I onlv respond to complaints from patrons, community, Joshua. ODA1s. and anvbodv else throu'?h formal complaints. So you never made an evaluation or assessment even of those things to determine the extent to which black participation was being minimized? I did not personally Staff members did. I see. Was there a plan of action developed by the Compliance Committee for dealing with the lack of black participation in acrivities like cheerleader and things like that? A. There was no plan developed by the Compliance Committee. The principals developed plans, along with the sponsors. 64. The LRSD presented as part of its case no such plai.-i by a principal or a sponsor. This included testimony that the myriad activities at Central High School had racially disparate A:iJOSHUA.OPP -30- participation, a problem not discussed at faculty meetings. [Tr. at 199-200, 207 (Faucette)] 65 . The LRSD reported that 90% of African American parents \"that expressed an opinion\" reported that they had activities available to their students. [Tr. at 773 (Lacey)] This answer does not address parental views regarding whether racial barriers to participation in school activities exist. African American school board member Iv.like Daugherty who has disassociated himself from the petition before the Court was unc?.mfortable with information being given strictly in percentages rather than in actual numbers regarding the survey. [Tr. at 614] 66. No District witness testifie.d that there was a specific plan, which the District through any representative, developed for addressing the disparities in e)rtracurricular and co-curricular activities. Some of the disparities were not the result of financial resources or the lack thereon by students. At McClellan and Fair many activities were not offered because of the lack of teacher sponsors and lack of staff member encouragement to students to participate. [Tr. at 477, 478, 49'.2, 533 (Carter)] [Tr. at 74, 92 (Norman)] 67. The District obviously did not follow policies JJR, JJIV and JBA-R because after disparities were identified, it did not develop an improvement plan in any area nor did it develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities to ensure that there were no barriers to participation. The school district plan commits the District to developing remedies and to promote participation. The school district delegates these responsibilities to the principals. This is contrary to the Plan in that compliance is a district administrative obligation. 68. Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director during the 1998-2001 school years addressed the problems which African _American students experienced in e\"\"'tracurricular activities. 69. He investigated an incident where a white coach acknowledged that he choked a black A: \\JOSHUA. OPP -31- Tl student at SW lYiiddle School. [Tr. at 573-576 (Mosby) (See also CX 771)]. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, - Gillespie's supervis9r, downplayed the incident saying she didn't think it was a real choking incident, but the coach admitted that he choked the child after he lost his temper. [Tr at 274-275] Mitchell's testimony reveals the attitude of the LR administration regarding compliance. She and the Compliance Committee would have profited by use of the experts, especially Dr. Terrence Roberts in addressing plan commitments. See paragraphs 126(a), (b) and (c). 70. Gillespie testified that it was a very severe offense. This occurred during football practice when other students were present. [Pp. 7-11 , Deposition ofR Gillespie] 71 . Gillespie cited similar incidents including a coach fighting an .African American student (pp. 15-17, Deposition of Gillespie) at Hall; and a white coach slapping an African American student at Mann 1v1iddle SchooL [Pp. 26-28, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 72 . The same coach involved in the choking incident at SW Middle School also called an African American female student a \"bitch.\" [ Pp. 11-13, Deposition ofR Gillespie] 73 . Gillespie also testified that parents were upset at the middle school regarding Quiz Bowl, Band, Science Clubs and 9th grade athletics at the Middle Schools. (See CX. 770/772, p. 21 , Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 74. Several of the students explained their lack of encouragement with respect to participation in extracurricular activities. D.J Thames, a student at Fair High School, was discouraged by the repeated use of profanity by his Coach, Randy Rutherford [Tr. at 419-20] He also testified about the racially preferential treatment which Rutherford provided to white team players. [Tr. at 421-423 , 432] 75. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that he was discouraged from A:VOSHC4..0PP -32- participating in Quiz Bowl by Ms. Pickering, a white teacher, who told him that he could not be on the \"A\" team [Tr. -~t 403-04]. 76 . Payne stated that his white Calculus Teacher, rvir. Wilder, refused to write a recommendation for him because he didn't think Payne was \"smart enough\" to attend Governor's School [ Tr. at 404] 77 . Payne also explained that Ms. Klais gave him a recommendation to a college which she wrote on a piece of notebook paper for him. He was aware that she had written recommendations for white students on school letterhead. [Tr. at 407] 78. Payne also testified that he was aware that Coach Rutherford \"cursed\" African American players but not white players. [Tr. at 414] 79. Crystal and Justin Mercer testified that they sought to participate in mock trial. They were discouraged from participation. [Tr. at 322-23 ; 386-389] Justin was also discouraged from participating in debate [Tr. at 3 61-62] and from starting a club, the purpose ofvvhich ,vas to promote interracial diversity at Central High School by a white teacher named :t'vfr. Meadows. [Tr. at 3.96-3 97] 80. Dr. Faucette sought to receive support for his creating writing club, but did not receive it from the principal. The club had a previous history ofracial diversity. [Tr. at 192-96, 229-30] E. The Obligations to Promote Participation of \"Qualified\" African American Students in Extracurricular Activities and to Ensure That There are No Barriers to Such Participation 81. In Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan, the LRSD promised to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and . to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African Americans in e)rtracurricular activities .. . . \" The LRSD adopted several regulations identifying activities to promote compliance with Section 2. 6 of the Revised Pian A. :;JOSHUA.OPP ..,.., - .).)- ff .. regarding e:;,._'iracurricular activities. 82. There were segregated activities and apparent barriers to /tlrican .Americans participation in them. Section 2.6, implememing regulations, and the compliance structure created pursuant to Sections 2.13 , 2.13 .'l, and Section 6 of the Plan called for a practical response to these problems. The system defaulted. F. The Obligation to Provide Transportation to Students for Participation in After School Activities  83 . Section 2. 6.3 provides that the LRSD shall provide transportation to students ... to allow those students to participate in after school activities . . [CX. 870, p. 29] The 2000 Report does not address this provision. 84. The 2001 Report simply recites the number of extracurricular activity runs per day for high and middle schools with a notation that no \"elig:ible\" student has been denied. [p. 29] The - District does not define \"eligible.\" 85. The witnesses who addressed the transportation obligation included Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312-31 3]; Justin Mercer [Tr. at 358]; Pam Mercer [Tr.at 450]; [Tr. at 532 (l Carter)] [Tr. at 75 (C. Norman)] They testified that the District did not provide transportation for a number ofactivities. G. The Obligations to Ensure that There is No Racial Discrimination In the Provision of Guida.nee and Counseling Services and (H.) To Provide More Eguitv in Academic Honors, Awards and Scholarships 86. The 2000 Report (at pages 81-82) promises that the LRSD will implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there will be no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. The report promises at page 81 to continue monitoring of school district equity issues with respect to honors, awards and scholarships. The report states that A:VOSHUA.OPP -34- \u0026lt;I, \"continued strategies are addressed to increase the number of African Americans who pursue more rigorous academic course work and receive scholarships.\" 87. The report further refers to Section 2.11.1 by referring back to 2.11. 88. The 200i Report (at p. 160) simply recites the scholarships awarded at the high schools by numb.er, at p. 160 and by dollar value, at p. 161. The District does not recite any activities or programs that it engaged in to mee! the provisions of Section 2.11 at page 160, other than a survey which purported represented the opinion of94% of all parents \"that help and f!uidance was available to their child.\" There has been no dispute that counseling services were \"available\" for they have always been. The District did not present any testimony regarding how it planned to modify the delivery of policies or procedures as provided by, and to meet the objectives of, Section 2.11. Nor did it delineate the work that it did in an effort to provide more equity for African American students in academic honors, awards and scholarships. Indeed, the District did not present the data which delineated scholarships awarded to African American an_d non African American students on an academic basis. 89. \\Nith respect to honor graduates, .African American students constitute 66% of the high school emollment. In 1999-2000, they received 32% of the honors. The only strategy to improve the number of African American honor graduates is to have them elect to take more AP courses. 90. The Hall High School counselor, Ms. Pat Watson, agreed that counseling services were utilized in the 1999-2000 school term in an attempt by school district administrators to place two white students ahead of a Black student ,1/ith respect to the school's valedictorian position. [Tr. at 115-li9 (Watson)] Joshua .vas instrumental in preventing this intentional racial practice from occurring. A:VOSHE4..0PP -3 5- 91 . Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent responsible for counseling services, made no findings regarding student access to higher education opportunity being improved by either guidance services or by A.P courses. He did not review or monitor the annual guidance counselor's reports. [Tr. at 148-'49] 92. Ramona Horton, an involved parent in the District, testified that her children did not get help from the counselors. [Tr. at 30?] In her opinion, the delivery of counseling services was \"QQQL\" [Tr. at 314] She did not participate in any survey regarding the delivery of counseling services in the District. [Tr. at 314] 93 . Crystal Mercer stated that she received no assistance from her counselors nor any encouragement about enrolling or remaining, after being enrolled .. in AJ\u0026gt; classes. [Tr. at 319-320, 324] 94. Justin Mercer stated his counselor suggested that he should not take AP Economics when he wanted to in1prove his GPA [Tr. at 3 52] His counselor told him that he could not take AP Economics because there was no teacher qualified to teach it and there was not enough student interest for it. He later learned that white students had not been similarly discouraged when he received his ne:;,,,'i: class assignment from a white friend had AP Economics on his schedule. [Tr. at 352-353] Mercer's counselor told him that he could not enroll in AP Physics because he did not meet the requirements to take it. [Tr. at 3 54] Mercer's counselor was white. [Tr. at 3 71] 95. The counselors at Central told Justin Mercer when he arrived at Central that he should not take A.P and Pre-A.P courses. The reason given was that he had been in regular courses in Junior High School and that the teachers were familiar with his transcript. [Tr. at 377] Mercer's counselor also discouraged him from taking . L\u0026gt;J\u0026gt; Physics II because of his background. [Tr. at 384] A: 1JOSI-TU..4.. OPP -36- 96. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor informed him that one of his teachers ;was prejudiced. [Tr. at 403] 97. D.J. Thames, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor did not assist him in getting into the College of Wooster. [Tr. at 418] Thames' counselor discouraged him from taking AP English. [Tr. at 426] His counselor also advised him to drop Ms. Pickering a.fcer having been in her class. [Tr. at 429] 98. During the 1998-99 and 99-2000 school years, McClellan had larger numbers of African American students than Central High School enrolled in AP courses. Benveen the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years, McClellan had the same number of black honors graduates as Central. The dollar value of scholarships for African American students was more than twice as much as the Central students. During the 1999-2000 school year, when the African American numbers favored Central by 2 to 1, the scholarship an1ounts favored Central students by more than 5 to 1. ThiSTeflects the second class status/perception of McClellan High School in comparison to Central. CENTR4.L HIGH SCHOOL 98a. when i\\frican American parents filed the class action lawsuit seeking to desegregate the Little Rock public schools, the school district offered Central High School as the point at which to begin a plan of gradual school desegregation. Aaron v. Coover. 1-13 F. Supp. 855 (ED. Ark 1956). The plan was designed to delay the process for as long as possible pursuant to Brown v Board of Education of Toueka. Kansas 347 US. -183, (195-1), and to involve as few minority race students as possible. The Court of Appeals affirmed 243 F2d 361 (8th Cir. 1956). The District was select in choosing the first 1 7 Black students chosen by the District to attend Central, only nine (the Little Rock Nine) of whom braved the adversity of the opposition and attended Central. A: 'J0Sffi.L4..0PP -,~ -.J / - .98b. In 1972, :5fteen years after Central High School had become a symbol of public resistance to the p.rip.ciple of school desegregation, :lvlichael Faucette, an African American began his high school education at the school. He completed grades 10 through 12 at the school and graduated in 1975 . During his fenure, students were ability grouped for academic purposes into three \"tracks.\" There were other academic groupings as well. Michael Faucette was placed in track one, the track for those students said to be the strongest academically. [Tr. at 166 (Facuette}] ,, 99. During Michael Faucette's three years in the school, he was the only African American male student in his classes. He was oft.en the only African ivnerican in his class. The total enrollment of the school at that time was approximately 65 to 70% African American. There were only eight black faculty members in Central during the period of Michael Faucette's attendance at the school; he had only one black teacher during his three years. There was only one black cheerleader during Faucette's attendance at Central. [Tr. at 166-67, 204-05 (Faucette)] 100. The school system did not recognize the academic achievements of its black high school graduates in this period. After graduating from Central High School, Mr. Faucette entered the University of California at Berkeley. After one of his classes, during his freshman year, his professor told Faucette it was an honor to have a student in his class who had earned a test score as high as 11r. Faucette had earned on one standardized test. No one from Central High School or the LRSD had complimented Faucette on this achievement prior to his leaving the District. [Tr. at 167-68 (Faucette)] 101. During the course of his post-secondary education, Michael Faucette earned two Bachelors degrees, a Masters degree, and a PhD. He taught at the college level at the University of Washington and the University of Georgia. Vlhile.at the University of Washington, he developed a A:1JOSHl.L4.0PP -38- 11 program designed to help high school students succeed at the higher education level. [ Tr. at i69 (Faucette)] 102. By 1998, the 40th anniversary of the Central High School \"crisis\", Dr. Faucette had determined to return to Little Rock to teach in the community in which he had secured his education. _t,,.s part of his application process in the LRSD, he visited Central High School in February, 1998. The then principal, Rudolph Howo/d, accompanied Dr. Faucette to visits to four classrooms in the school. He visited two AP classes in which the students were all white; he visited an honors class in which the students were two-thirds white; he visited a. regular English class in which there were, in contrast, only tw,o white students. The three all white or identifiably white classes had white teachers and the class with only two white students had an African .American teacher. Dr. Faucette commented to Principal Howard about the makeup of the classes. observing that the presence of two-all white classes surprised him; Mr. Howard did not reply. [Tr. 169-71 (Faucette)] 103. Dr. Faucette began teaching at Central High School at the start of the 1998-99 school year. He was assigned to teach one remedial class and regular English sections in the 12th grade. In that year, in the 12u1 grade, there were nineteen (19) English sections, some advanced placement sections, some regular English sections and two sections with a remedial designation. Dr. Faucette observed that the advanced classes - tracks - were composed almost entirely of white students and, as to location, concentrated on the third floor of the building. In contrast, the regular and remedial sections - tracks - were \"primarily black\" in student makeup and located on the second floor of the building. This pattern of the racial make-up of the various categories of sections and their locations continued \"virtually unchanged\" during the nex\"t two school years (the second and third years of the Revised Plan) . [Tr. at 172-75, (Faucette)] Other evidence revealed that there were few black students A.\\JOSHUA.OPP -39- 11,l in advanced placement classes during the period of the plan. [Tr. at 303 (R. Horton); at 319 (C. Mercer); at 330 CJ.Mercer)] 104. During the three years of the Plan, the makeup of the cadre of English teachers in the school was eight (8) white and eight (8) A,frican American persons, however, African American teachers taught no (98-99) or few (99-00, 00-01) advanced sections ofEnglish in the school as shown by the following chart: 98-99 99-00 2000-01 Total Eng sections 69 88 84 Total advanced secs 23 36 37 Adv sec taught by Blacks 0 2 4 English teachers 8W/8B 8'W/8B 8w/8B [Tr. 1 75-76, 178, 179-80, (Faucette)] 105. Dr. Faucette, a teacher whose excellent qualifications were obvious, did not teach even one advanced section of English during the three years of the Plan, despite the fact that these sections nu    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\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\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"}],"pages":{"current_page":36,"next_page":37,"prev_page":35,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":420,"total_count":1850,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1843},{"value":"Sound","hits":4},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":220},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":179},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":69},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":30},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":12},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":5},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1745},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1244},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":1207},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":886},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":721},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":690},{"value":"School integration","hits":604},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":601},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":560},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":474},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":417}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Joshua","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1849},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1836},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1799},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1539},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Missouri, Saint Louis City County, Saint Louis, 38.65588, -90.30928","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1836},{"value":"Missouri","hits":5},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":2},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Ohio","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":385},{"value":"1995","hits":376},{"value":"1996","hits":334},{"value":"1993","hits":312},{"value":"1992","hits":292},{"value":"1999","hits":273},{"value":"1997","hits":268},{"value":"1991","hits":255},{"value":"2001","hits":252},{"value":"2000","hits":251},{"value":"1998","hits":245},{"value":"2002","hits":182},{"value":"1990","hits":173},{"value":"2003","hits":164},{"value":"2004","hits":148},{"value":"1989","hits":134},{"value":"2005","hits":119},{"value":"2006","hits":86},{"value":"2011","hits":62},{"value":"2010","hits":60},{"value":"2007","hits":57},{"value":"1988","hits":51},{"value":"2008","hits":47},{"value":"2009","hits":47},{"value":"1987","hits":35},{"value":"1986","hits":30},{"value":"2012","hits":30},{"value":"1984","hits":27},{"value":"1985","hits":23},{"value":"2013","hits":19},{"value":"1983","hits":16},{"value":"1982","hits":15},{"value":"1980","hits":13},{"value":"1981","hits":13},{"value":"1974","hits":12},{"value":"1975","hits":12},{"value":"1976","hits":12},{"value":"1977","hits":12},{"value":"1978","hits":12},{"value":"1979","hits":12},{"value":"1973","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1967","hits":9},{"value":"1968","hits":9},{"value":"1969","hits":9},{"value":"1970","hits":9},{"value":"1971","hits":9},{"value":"1972","hits":9},{"value":"1954","hits":8},{"value":"1966","hits":8},{"value":"1950","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":7},{"value":"1952","hits":7},{"value":"1953","hits":7},{"value":"1955","hits":7},{"value":"1956","hits":7},{"value":"1957","hits":7},{"value":"1958","hits":7},{"value":"1959","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":7},{"value":"1961","hits":7},{"value":"1962","hits":7},{"value":"1963","hits":7},{"value":"1964","hits":7},{"value":"1965","hits":7},{"value":"2017","hits":6},{"value":"2015","hits":5},{"value":"2016","hits":5},{"value":"2018","hits":5},{"value":"2019","hits":5},{"value":"2020","hits":5},{"value":"2021","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"2023","hits":5},{"value":"2024","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2024","count":5114,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":904},{"value":"reports","hits":255},{"value":"judicial records","hits":232},{"value":"legal documents","hits":207},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":67},{"value":"project management","hits":62},{"value":"budgets","hits":38},{"value":"correspondence","hits":23},{"value":"handbooks","hits":20},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}