{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1737","title":"District Court, order and transcript.","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":["2002-07-16"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School discipline","Education--Evaluation","School integration","Student activities","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, order and transcript."],"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/1737"],"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":["73 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\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    RECEIVED JUL J 8 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866-WR W PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE.KNIGHT, et al ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Attached is a transcript of the hearing held Friday, last (July 12). Since time is short (the evidentiary hearing will commence next Monday, July 22), this transcript, rather than a detailed, separate order, is adopted as the order of the court (court solecisms and all).  IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WIT~ f U/4 58 AND/OR~ ON /f7i\"),,- BY~7,,...~...-~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., No. 4:82CV00866WRW Friday, July 12, 2002 Little Rock, Arkansas 8:30 a.rn. 8 Intervenors. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: On Behalf of Little Rock School District: MR. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, Attorney at Law MR. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 On Behalf of Pulaski County Special School District: MR. M. SAMUEL JONES, III, Attorney at Law Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter [Continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES CONTINUED: On Behalf of North Little Rock School District: MR. STEPHEN W. JONES, Attorney at Law MR . GUY W. MURPHY, JR ., Attorney at Law Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 On Behalf of the Joshua Intervenors : MR . JOHN W. WALKER, Attorney at Law John W. Walker, P.A . 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206; and MR. ROBERT PRESSMAN, Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington , Massachusetts 02421 On Behalf of the Knight Intervenors: MR. RICHARD W. ROACHELL, Attorney at Law Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RECEIVED JUL J 8 2002 OFFICEOF OESEGREGATION MONITORING Proceedings reported by machine stenography and displayed in realtime; transcript prepared utilizing computer -aided transcription. Christa R. Newburg , RMR , CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceeding at 8:30 a .m. , as follows:) THE COURT : We ' re here this morning for a short hearing in the Little Rock School District against the Pulaski County Special School , et al . It's Case No . LR-C-82-866. I might first introduce counsel and the people present to Ms. Christy Conrad . Would you stand up, please , ma ' am? 3 She is my new lawyer on this case, commenced to work this morning. She will be the law clerk especially assigned to this case. That ' s Ms. Christy Conrad. We might start with Mr . Walker. I got my letter off late yesterday, and if you don't mind outlining for me briefly what your two rebuttal witnesses will say . Ms . Marshall -- go ahead . If you don ' t mind , come to the lectern . When we start the trial next week , week after next , we'll have mikes on the table , but I don ' t have them now . MR. WALKER: Your Honor , my I inquire whether you received my letter? Apparently our letters -- THE COURT : I did get a letter from you. I've got it right here, as a matter of fact. I don ' t believe it addressed that issue. If it did, I overlooked it . Like I say, my letter got out later than I thought. MR . WALKER : Your Honor, it does attempt to address it on page 2, paragr aph four , sub six . THE COURT : Paragraph four? MR. WALKER: Sub six, the bottom of the second page. Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 It begins, ttplaintiff suggests that if nottt -- THE COURT: All right. Let me read that. I do have this letter, and I've read it. That's another one of my lawyers. We're all working on this case, and she needs t o be able to hear us back in chambers, and she has just announced, Mr. Walker, she couldn't hear you . So both of us need to speak right into the mike. MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I have read that. Can you be a little more specific with us? MR. WALKER: Dr. Lesley in her testimony indicated that the evaluation process was not flawed , in part because it was -- it involved the ODM, Mr. Gene Jones specifically, and Ms. Ann Marshall to some extent. And she submitted an exhibit that relates to or was attempting to relate to the participation of the ODM, in order to demonstrate that involvement. We wanted to establish what ODM's role was and also the fact that ODM at all times through Mr. Jones had expressed difficulty and problems with the evaluation approach that was being used by the district and the lack of evaluations. THE COURT: And Ms. Marshall and Gene Jones are both going to address that issue? MR. WALKER: There were two separate points where -which differ. Ms. Marshall can only relate to an exhibit that Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dr. Lesley introduced where she made reference to, if I understand to be correct, where she made reference to the comments and the like that had been made about in criticism or critique of a document which she had prepared, and it would be our intention to show that that was misrepresentative of the involvement of ODM. THE COURT: All right . Thank you. MR. WALKER: And the other will be Mr. Gene Jones, and Mr. Jones was sometimes invited to some of the sessions 5 that dealt with the subject. And his -- the way his participation was presented, we would address, and also the comments and the like that he made or his observations from the perspective from which he sits we thought would be useful to the Court in explaining the overall evaluation. The ODM was supposed to have a special role in relationship to the whole process , and we would like to at least take that time to put that in. THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from Mr. Heller, see if he continues his objection in view of that. MR. HELLER: Good morning, your Honor. We do continue our objection. Mr. Walker didn't identify any of the exhibits he's talking about. Dr. Lesley's testimony , which, as we've said, could have been anticipated in its entirety because it didn't concern anything other than the compliance reports which were filed by the district, her testimony regarding ODM Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was minimal. As I recall, all she did was point out that an ODM monitoring report which is in the record did not require anything other than what Dr. Lesley was doing. That report is in the record. Mr. Walker had a chance to question Dr. Lesley about it, and there shouldn't be any issue about that. With regard to Mr. Jones , all that was said about him was that he was a participant in several meetings. I think that's 6 undisputed. Dr. Lesley didn't say that she thought Mr. Jones' position on a particular issue would be X or Y. The only thing in the record that I recall is that Mr . Jones participated in a meeting, and I think that's undisputed. With respect to Mr. Walker's comment about Mr. Jones' perspective would be helpful on the evaluation process, which really, as the Court is aware, was a requirement for assessments rather than evaluations, that's something that clearly could have been presented in Mr. Walker's case in chief , if he believed that someone from ODM had a perspective about the assessment process that was important, because Mr . Walker knew that's exactly what Dr. Lesley was going to testify about. THE COURT: Let me say this before you leave the lectern, if you will, because I may ask you another question: I generally take a pretty dim view of rebuttal evidence because I've found that most of it -- I've found in practice over the years that most of it is not true rebuttal . And I point that Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 out in some of my letters or orders, and, as a matter of fact, in my standard scheduling order or letter with that scheduling order, one or the other, I point out that rebuttal witnesses must be identified if known. Well, that's almost by definition that if they're known, they're not rebuttal witnesses. So I've always had a hard time with that. But this case was tried by Judge Wright, the first roughly half of evidentiary hearing on the issues before the Court now. She did reserve 30 minutes' rebuttal time. Truthfully, I'm inclined to agree that this doesn't sound like rebuttal, but out of an abundance of caution, since it's only 30 minutes, I'm going to allow these witnesses to be called, with these requirements: Number one, I'm going to require Mr. Walker to identify the documents -- are you prepared to do that now, Mr. Walker, exhibits, or would you rather do this by a pleading in the next -- by, say, Monday afternoon? MR. WALKER: A letter , your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Then by 4 p.m. Monday. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, before you finish, could you -- THE COURT: Let me finish, and then I'm going to let you have the floor again, Mr. Walker. MR . WALKER: All right. Thank you. THE COURT: By 4 p.m. Monday, identify the exhibits that you plan to address with Jones or Marshall. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 Number two , Mr. Heller , if you want to -- you can interview these people, I assume. If you can't interview them, I'll allow you to take a telephone deposition of them next week to prepare you to meet this rebuttal testimony. If you want to do that, notify Mr . Walker and me by 11 a.m. Monday , if you want to take their depositions as opposed to interviewing them. All right. If you don't have any other comments , Mr. Heller, Mr. Walker looks like he's going to swell up and burst if he doesn't get to say something else on this. MR. HELLER : There is just one thing , your Honor. think it's at least implicit in all of the orders, but we'll certainly have an opportunity for cross-examination. I' m not sure how that counts against our time in the overall process, but -- THE COURT: I'm going to be somewhere between Judge Woods and Judge Eisele on timing. I MR . HELLER: I think we'll have plenty left from our 20 hours, even if the cross-examination counts against us. THE COURT : All right. MR. WALKER : Well, your Honor, I have no objection to them interviewing these people, but Ms. Brown has always -- and the ODM , for the Court's benefit, has always taken the position that it's available to speak with either or both of the parties about any matter that they are related to. THE COURT : It looks to me like, Mr. Walker, you've Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 just won. Are you piling on now? MR. WALKER: No, sir. No, sir. All I'm saying no, sir. All I'm saying is that it's not an order that's necessary. I mean, they have that as a standing -- that's been longstanding in the district, as long as the ODM has been in the process. THE COURT: I 'm going to enter the order even if it ' s pure surplusage. MR. WALKER: All right. Now, with respect to the testimony, we will provide that. THE COURT : You mean the exhibits? MR. WALKER: The exhibits. THE COURT: Right. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, by way of background THE COURT : Let me - - I want to change that. If you want to depose them, I don't think you would, Mr . Heller, but if you do, let me know by -- let Mr. Walker and me know by 9 or 9:30, by 9:30 Tuesday morning, because you may not know until you see the exhibits. Go ahead, Mr. Walker. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, I hate to say this. The Court -- you indicated you were going to follow much of Judge Wright's process that she followed. She steadfastly refused to allow us to depose the ODM , which was part of her staff, as she said it, because that would, in effect, in a way be like Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deposing an arm of the Court. And I would ask that the Court not enter an order requiring depositions but allowing instead for them to just have the interviews. Once you start doing that, then -- THE COURT: You know, that's a pretty good point. Let me hear from Mr. Heller on that. MR. WALKER: Okay. 10 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, as I'm sure the Court is aware, we raised an issue with Judge Wright concerning the role of the monitors in this case. THE COURT: Let me say something on that, and I'll try not to interrupt you too much, but I probably won't do a very good job since I have -- I'm a type A. When I assumed the case, I met with Ms. -- or was assigned the case, I met with Ms. Marshall, and we exchanged pleasantries right after I was appointed. We did not talk about the substance of the case in any way. After that, after thinking about it and after reviewing the file some and seeing what had been discussed, I asked a member of my staff to contact Ms. Marshall and advise her that all of our communications would be in writing. And I have had no further conversations with her, do not intend to. Everything will be in writing. And I can't imagine that I wouldn't share the whatever writings I send to her or she sends to me with counsel. So there will be no just out of an abundance of caution -- and I see the ODM as a fact- Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 gathering institution, and I'm going to use ODM in a different way than Judge Wright used the ODM, although I'm not criticizing or passing judgment on the way she used it. But if that helps you , that's -- I hope it does. But at any rate, that will be the relationship. MR. HELLER: And I think, your Honor, that addresses Mr. Walker's argument, because our position with Judge Wright is, the monitor's office is either more like a law clerk and cannot be deposed but can't testify either, or more of a fact gatherer and not so closely related to the Court that testimony would be prohibited. And Judge Wright allowed us to take Ann Marshall's deposition. We've done it once in anticipation of her testimony. So your ruling is entirely consistent with what Judge Wright had previously ordered . And in any event, I can say right now that if interviews can be arranged, I won't be asking for a deposition. I will be perfectly satisfied with an interview. But only in the event that we couldn't reach an agreement about arranging an interview THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Heller: Assuming you wanted to discuss conversations, you or Mr. Walker, either one, that Ms. Marshall had had with Judge Wright, I don't see how that would be relevant now that I'm the trier of fact. So that's something that I want to avoid being delved into if a deposition is allowed. MR . HELLER: I agree that would not be relevant. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to flip-flop again. Y'all are going to give me a nervous breakdown. MR. WALKER: Don't do it yet. THE COURT : All right. I'll give Mr . Walker one last shot. MR. WALKER: This is not a subject that I asked that should be dealt with perhaps today. I think that the Court of Appeals was very clear about what it wanted monitoring to do. There was a special concurrence from Judge Wollman in the THE COURT: I'm familiar with that concurrence. MR. WALKER: -- that anticipated that monitoring would be conducted in a certain manner, and the manner t hat it was being conducted has, in effect, been approved by the Court of Appeals. Now , if it's to be changed, then I would certainly think that the Court ought to at least invite the positions of the parties in writing and a brief on the subject so that we -- THE COURT: On what subject? MR. WALKER: On the subject of the way the monitors should react or act with the Court. Recall in this situation, your Honor , there is a situation where once when Little Rock came to court and demonstrated that it was not aware of all the employees they had, even the total number and what t hey were doing and things like that, Judge Wright then gave the monitor's office a function that was to do an investigation a nd to do things, and then she had hearings on those things . The Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 role of the monitor is distinctly different from that of a party where orders are given and things -- so what we'd like to do is at least preserve that . In the field of desegregation law, monitors THE COURT : I'm not understanding what you're asking me to do. MR. WALKER: I'm asking that you do nothing to change the way that that office operates. Because if you say that you're going to -- THE COURT: I'm not changing the way, as far as I know. MR. WALKER: Even if you communicate with them and communicate with them each time in writing, I think that that's not something that should be necessarily -- THE COURT: Your objection is noted . Your exception is saved. You can file a motion for reconsideration if you want to, but I've made my mind up on that at this point, and you can file a motion and -- but don't do it with a great deal of optimism. But feel free to do it. MR. WALKER: Here's the reason I raise the issue -- THE COURT: I've decided on that issue, Mr. Walker. Put whatever objection you have in your motion for reconsideration. We need to move on to some other issues. MR. WALKER: Half a minute, please? THE COURT: Yes. Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 MR. WALKER: We have the matter of -- the ruling here necessarily has to apply to the other districts as well. THE COURT: Absolutely. MR. WALKER: We have the matters of Pulaski County that are still pending. There is no motion before the Court. The role of the monitor there would seem to be being limited by the Court's ruling now because THE COURT: Put that in your motion. MR. WALKER: All right, your Honor. All right. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. I want to remind the parties, I've said it several times in writing, and Judge Wright said it, but I want to remind you at the outset of that, we have three discrete issues left, and one of them is advanced placement courses, another is extracurricular activities, the third is guidance and counseling. And then, of course, we have good faith, but only as good faith applies to those one, two, three things that I just mentioned. And we have academic achievement on the table, but only as it relates to those three -- one, two, three issues. As Mr. Walker just noted, this applies to both sides with equal force. Now, as I have read the transcript, the issues tried to conclusion, and I emphasize the phrase \"to conclusion,\" by Judge Wright were lack of good faith under Section 2.1; two, improving African-American achievement, lack of good faith by the Little Rock School District; and, three, student Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 discipline. Now, those issues are closed. They've been tried to conclusion, save and except the 30 minutes for rebuttal which we will start the hearing a week from Monday with. All right. Now, I want to turn to Mr. Fendley's letter which was in response to the letter I got out about one o'clock yesterday. Let me find Mr. Fendley's letter. 11. It's dated July Now, on the first page, there's a reference to Joshua's witness list and a reference to Ms. Sharon Brooks. It appears to me that Mr. Walker's testimony would go to student discipline there. If that's true, I think it would be appropriate to object at the trial , but I don't know that I need to deal with it now. If anybody thinks I do, I'll hear from you. But if it does go to student discipline, I'm likely to exclude it at the trial. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, may I be heard? THE COURT: You may. MR. WALKER: Some of these matters overlap. A matter that may be related to student discipline may also relate to counseling. And I would say in this situation , the discipline part of this THE COURT: Related to guidance and counseling? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. And the first part of it, where students collectively are punished for ringing an alarm by putting them in a room with an aide for two months where Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter -- --- - - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 there's no record of the discipline appears to be disciplinary. But at the same time, it certainly goes to the educational experience and the need for there to have been at least some counseling with respect to what those -- the educational needs of those children were and how they were being addressed. So we say that it has two purposes. The first, on discipline, though, has to relate -- you remember, you've seen the records. They have disciplinary records showing students who are suspended for this, this, and this. Normal discipline relations, those kinds of things. But putting kids in a room where they -- where there's no record of it clearly is discipline, but it is also something else. THE COURT: I'm going to think about that issue. I'm inclined to think that relates directly to discipline, but I'll think about it and we'll take it up at the trial. I'll let Mr. Heller address it right now, briefly, if he wishes to. MR. HELLER: Thank you, your Honor. I would just like to point out that at the last hearing, Mr. Walker argued that this was a discipline issue, and he presented evidence about it and argued about it and argued precisely what he just told the Court, that this is -- this situation, he alleges, was a way to avoid the recorded discipline statistics but was nonetheless discipline. I think it's going to be easy for him to say anytime something happened to any student at any time in the district, whether it relates to academic achievement or Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 some issue that's already been litigated, oh, by the way, they missed some counseling or could have been counseled otherwise. But I don't think that draws it into the scope of any legitimate objection he might have about guidance and counseling. THE COURT: Mr. Walker, you're on the downside of this issue. If you want to submit a trial brief to me to try to get me in a right frame of mind, in your view, by trial day, do a - - and this applies to either side. If you want to do another trial brief, get it to me by noon Wednesday of next week. By noon Wednesday. And I will guarantee you I will if it's not too long, I will have read your brief and your citations of authorities, if you will avoid string cites. string cites, I read only the first one and sometimes the second one. On Now we come to exhibits not directly related. And I think some of them have been withdrawn and so forth, but -- all right. Let's go to No. 746. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, there was one other witness mentioned in Mr. Fendley's letter, and that's Ethel Dunbar. THE COURT: Yes . Yes. I don't believe that -- it's my opinion, and, again , you can put this in the trial brief, Mr. Walker, if you think I am wrong-headed on this issue, that what -- it looks like what Ethel Dunbar would testify to goes to the gifted and talented issue, as far as I'm concerned. Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 That's not on the table. If you want to persuade me otherwise, you can put it in the trial brief. Let's go to the exhibits now. 746. I'm having a hard time reading my -- what is 746, Mr. Walker? Why don't you just hand me a copy of it so I can look at it? MR. WALKER: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Does the school district have a copy you can hand me? MR. HELLER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: If you've got any of your inked annotations on there, I don't want to see them. MR. HELLER: I've got a circle and an underline. THE COURT: I promise not to accept your emphasis. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, we have given you our copy, a copy of it. THE COURT: I just don't have it out here with me, and I just -- I need to look at something. MR. WALKER: This one has been MR. FENDLEY: Here you go. MR. HELLER: We'll give you Mr. Fendley's copy, which is merely highlighted. sure. MR. WALKER: Is this the new number given by your -THE COURT: I think this is the old number. I'm not MR. HELLER: That's correct, your Honor. Our Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 objections use the old numbers. THE COURT: 746. All right. I'm working my way over. Mr. Walker, if you'll approach the lectern. Are you telling me you don't have a copy either, Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: No, no. We have a copy, but we have taken the old exhibits -- after your courtroom deputy told us the new numbers, we changed them. 19 THE COURT: Okay. I'll give you time to get your sea legs. MR. WALKER: What is now 747 was 746. I don't understand the objection. THE COURT: All right. I'll have him state his objection then. Mr. Heller -- why don't you stand aside, Mr. Walker, and let him state his objection. MR. WALKER: All right. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, our objection is that Exhibit 746, using the old number, relates to ALT testing and not to any of the issues before the Court for next week. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, if you look at that exhibit, we're looking at the way the district has referred to the numbers that are related -- I don't see anything in 746 in the middle of the page which happens to be -- and I stand to be corrected, the e-mail from Babbs to Kathy Lease. THE COURT: You're going to have to I'm computer illiterate, Mr. Walker. You're going to have to quote the Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 language. I can't tell on e-mails from who to what unless it's written on there. MR. WALKER: Mr. Babbs, your Honor, is the person responsible for monitoring desegregation compliance. THE COURT: And he sent something to Kathy Lease. MR. WALKER: It apparently comes from Babbs to Lease. THE COURT: Right. MR. WALKER: And the third paragraph says, \"It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission, we will include district-wide numbers. We may not be there yet , but this will help serve as an indicator of established baseline information from which we will jump off.\" Now, this relates to, your Honor, the data that relates to pre-AP and AP courses, along with some other data, but it will be related to testimony regarding advanced placement. It also will be related to extracurricular activities. So you' 11 understand the concept, when you've got two black schools, McClellan and Fair, for all practical purposes, when you lump the extracurricular participation from those schools with the other schools, it gives a picture of real inclusivity. If you take it out, it may not. When you lump the -- when you do a lumping process, we're saying that it gives a false picture. There was an intent here, and this goes -- this is an intent, it goes to good faith, an intent to make a presentation Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 of a reality that did not exist. THE COURT: All right . Mr. Heller? MR. HELLER: Your Honor, Mr. Walker's explanation shows why this exhibit should be excluded. When we objected to it, their response was that it was related to extracurricular activities. Now the first thing that he said was that it's related to advanced placement and pre-advanced placement. It's not related to any of those things. It's related to testing and the compilation of documents. It doesn't have anything specifically to do with any of the issues before the Court. Mr. Walker has now given the Court two different explanations of how it relates, none of which can be shown from the face of the exhibit. THE COURT: All right. I don't believe I need briefs on this one . I will do a letter order ruling on that forthwith. Mark No. 746 down and remind me so I don't -- with the other issues involved so I get right on it. I think it's already been noted, but I want to re-note it. It's now 747 under the new numbering system. All right. 754. Mr. Walker, will you comment on 754? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Which now is what? MR. WALKER: It should be 755, if I'm not mistaken. MR. PRESSMAN: Sarne number. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT : Ms. Johnson? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 754 is an e-mail dated April 18, '01. Is that the one you're 22 MR. WALKER: Yes . That's at the bottom of the page, your Honor, on that document. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: It is still 754. That number did not change. THE COURT: All right . 754 is the same. All right. What's your explanation as to why this is admissible? MR. WALKER: This relates to AP and other subjects, and the last paragraph of it says, and this is from Kathy Lease to Bonnie Lesley: \"High school preliminary results have been returned to Parkview and Fair.\" THE COURT: Wait just a minute. I'm not with you. Where are you reading from? MR. WALKER: Bottom paragraph. THE COURT: Bottom paragraph. All right. Now I'm with you. MR. WALKER: \"McClellan's results are here and are being scored. Central and Hall have not turned in their answer sheets yet. All makeups were to have been completed by this past Monday. Retests for high schools are due back on Friday. The first page of the parent report can be printed, but we can't print the longitudinal report for parents unless all high schools are in.\" Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And this relates to AP courses. This, your Honor, is relevant in part because the date is noted, April 18. The report that was submitted that is before the Court is dated March 15 of the next -- of the same year. So this was less than 30 days, and they don't have the data in that related to AP courses on the longitudinal basis. THE COURT: On what basis? MR. WALKER: Longitudinal. THE COURT: You know, I've seen longitudinal basis throughout this thing. What does that mean? MR. WALKER: Over time. Looking at things in a broader perspective rather than in a single snapshot year. THE COURT: I'm pleased to be informed. Mr. Heller? 23 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, in the same way, anything that has to do with discipline can be said to relate to counseling; anything that has to do with any testing in the district can be said to relate to advanced placement because some of the students tested, obviously, will be advanced placement students. But the exhibit doesn't say anything about how the district implemented its obligations under the revised plan concerning advanced placement . to do with that at all. It doesn't have anything THE COURT: later than Monday. I'll rule by letter perhaps today, no Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 All right. Let's go to 771. MR. WALKER: Your Honor THE COURT: That is the letter to Mr . James Washington from Ms. Springer, is it not? MR. WALKER: Yes. Your Honor, this is from Ms. Springer to Mr. James yes. This is now Exhibit 769. THE COURT: Let me check that. 771? Not that I doubt your veracity, but you could make a mistake on numbers, so I want to check it with Ms. Johnson. 2/28? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. 769 is a letter dated MR. WALKER: Yes. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. 769. THE COURT: Thank you . MR. WALKER: Your Honor, this deals with extracurricular activities, and it's pretty clear, and the issue here relates to the district -- whether Little Rock has any responsibility THE COURT: In other words, you're offering this in rebuttal only? 24 MR. WALKER: No, this goes to extracurricular activities and good faith, because here we have a child who is in the Little Rock School District but who under M to M goes to Oak Grove. The child was not allowed to participate, we contend, in the activities at that school for racial reasons or Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 for retaliatory reasons. And I think the letter sort of speaks for itself . THE COURT: Well, why would -- on what ground would it be admissible? Is Ms . Springer going to be a witness? MR. WALKER: Well, your Honor, it shows, first of all , Mr. Washington, Mr. Washington is an agent of the district. THE COURT : I think that's a fair assessment , but he didn ' t write the letter. MR . WALKER: Well, there will be a person who will testify regarding that, who is Mr. Junious Babbs. Mr. Babbs was Mr. Washington's supervisor. The letter went to Mr . Babbs as well, so Mr. Babbs will be in a position to address the issue. THE COURT: What will he say? MR. WALKER : He will say what the district did in response to this , which was basically to do nothing. Just a moment . Let me make sure. Yes. He will basically say that the district did nothing . And remember, your Honor , the M to Ms from Little Rock going out are black. The ones coming in from the county are mostly white . THE COURT: All right. Mr. Heller? MR. HELLER : We have two points about 769, your Honor . The first is that it clearly involves, quote, Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 retaliatory treatment by Pulaski County School District officials, not Little Rock officials, and, secondly, that it's among the exhibits Joshua listed as being offered, although hearsay, as notice to the Little Rock School District. I think it might fall within the Court's ruling when we deal with the notice argument. But if you look at Joshua's response, I think this exhibit is among those that they say is being offered solely to show notice to somebody . Of course, we're going to argue when the time comes that that's not relevant. THE COURT: All right . Mr. Walker, what about the fact that this is not the LRSD? MR. WALKER: That it's not what? THE COURT: Concerning the -- he just said -- MR . WALKER: Well, it is concerning the LRSD. This is a student from the Little Rock School District. They don't lose responsibility for their students merely because they go to the county. THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute . The student was in the Pulaski County -- Oak Grove High School is in the Pulaski County Special School District. MR . WALKER: Your Honor, there is or was an agreement between the county and the city district as to how the desegregation plan would be operated . And the M to M provisions also have special rules . We would not have written this letter to Mr. Washington without a purpose. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter It may not be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 independent, but when we talked to Mr . Babbs about the way Little Rock students are treated in terms of extracurricular activities in general, we think that it is appropriate for us to be able to make reference to this in refreshi ng his recollection about the manner in which they have done . I acknowledge to you that it is not direct proof . I mean, a letter from Ms. Springer, who is not a witness, who is not THE COURT: I'm dubious, Mr. Walker, but I'll study it . MR. WALKER: All right. MR. HELLER: May I say one more thing? THE COURT: Surely . MR . HELLER : I ' d like to address Mr. Walker's 27 argument about the majority to minority transfer provisions. This student was a Little Rock student in the Pulaski County School District on an M to M transfer. The M to M stipulation clearly states that when a student transfers, he becomes a student of the receiving district for all purposes. So I don't want the Court to be left with an impression that there ' s some lingering responsibility or that the M to M stipulation is not clear about that . THE COURT : Thank you . All right . Let's go to 77 -what was 773 . Ms. Johnson, tell us what 773 is now . THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 773 is a letter dated 10/10/2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer. Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT : No, 773 under the old numbering system was an August 28, 2000, letter from Ms. Springer to Mr. Ray Gillespie. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All right. Then that is 771 now. THE COURT: It's now 771. All right. Mr. Walker, tell me about this one . 28 MR. WALKER: This one regards a child who was choked by a teacher, by a coach. This relates to extracurricular activity. It also, in our opinion, relates to -- when we present Mr. Gillespie, it will also relate to the district's good faith in the manner in which they address the issue. THE COURT: Mr. Heller? MR. HELLER: Your Honor, one of the things that's always been excluded from this case is any individual issue concerning a personnel matter or a student matter. THE with that in MR. MR. Overton? THE MR. THE MR. COURT: I believe Judge Overton kind his decision several years ago. HELLER: Yes, your Honor. WALKER: Just a moment, your Honor. COURT: Yes . WALKER: In this case? COURT: No, I believe - - WALKER: Judge Overton hasn't been Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter in of dealt Judge this case. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 THE COURT: Beg your pardon? No, Judge Woods and Judge Wright. Judge Overton dealt with the issue of isolated instances of misconduct. Go ahead. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, here it's just clearly not related to the district's implementation of the extracurricular requirements. If it were a teacher, it would obviously be totally outside the scope of this hearing, and just the fact that someone who happens to be a coach was involved in this incident doesn't bring it within the scope, since it's simply an isolated incident concerning an individual complaint. THE COURT: I'm inclined to agree. I agree it's bad, but I'll decide later and put it in my letter. MR. WALKER: Just a minute. Just a minute. We've only highlighted a few things, and we intend to show through either Mrs . Lacey or Mr. Babbs that there were numbers of these cases that suggested it's simply not an isolated incidence. This is extracurricular activity, and we're seeking to show how black kids are treated, and this is simply there to remind Mrs. Lacey or others of what has taken place. Now, in terms of -- as I understand desegregation law, you're not likely to have the same situation repeated with respect to children, but when you put together a number or at least a sufficient number of similar situations, then the -- at least the response of the district to those similar situations Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 is instructive as to whether the district is in compliance and in good faith. THE COURT: It may boil down to how many you have. If you had 10,000 of them -- and I realize that's extreme, but it may boil down to how many you have. And I'll rule by letter. MR. WALKER: All right. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. And, incidentally, if I exclude any of these, I want the record to reflect here and now that you have a continuing objection to excluding them. They'll be made a part of the record, and your objection will be noted and your exception saved. All right. Let's go to 775 under the old system. What is it now? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: It is now 773. A letter dated 10/10/2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer? THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Walker, don't we have the same thing here? MR. WALKER: Well, it's different, your Honor. Here the history of the school district has been that if a child was in the ninth grade, even though in junior high school, he or she could participate in the varsity athletic programs at the senior high school . So if a child happened to be enrolled at Forest Heights in the ninth grade, that child was eligible to participate in, say, the football program at Hall or wherever Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 he would be attending. When the school district converted to a middle school program, the school district decided not to let ninth graders continue to participate in sports programs in the same way it had in the past, and this had a discriminatory impact because most of the children who participated in football and basketball were black. Now, those children could -- those children could still participate in other activities, but some of the other academic-type activities were differently constituted. So this letter, if you look at the middle of it, you'll see Ms. Springer's comment to Dr. Carnine. Mr. Gillespie reported to Mr. Winston and me that there existed documentation which communicated to all parents the district's position regarding ninth grade participation on varsity teams for the 2000-2001 school year. Now, this is again not direct evidence -- and I think that much of this comes from experience, not direct evidence, but we have a witness, your Honor, that we have identified that will be discussing the issue. THE COURT: Who is that? MR. WALKER: That would be Mr. Gillespie. It could also be Mrs. Lacey, Dr . Lacey, or Mr. Babbs, because each of them had responsibility for extracurricular activity. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Heller? Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, the Little Rock School District is a majority black school district, and everything we do is going to affect more African-American kids than other kids. This situation, according to Mr. Walker's argument, is something that affected all students . It wasn't something that targeted black students or targeted this particular student. But, again , it looks like an individual complaint, but the complaint is about something that had general application and doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the Little Rock School District is ensuring there aren't any barriers to participation by qualified African-American students in extracurricular activities. THE COURT: You know, I was just thinking, I wish the rules of ninth graders participating in senior high athletics had applied in 1954 when I was in the ninth grade. We finished the junior high year and they moved three or four of us up to the senior high team, and we had some young teenagers competing against grown men, to our physical detriment. prohibited it back in those days. I wish they had MR. HELLER: That brings up another point. It's really the Arkansas Activities Association that determines who is eligible to participate in this, rather than the school district. THE COURT: What I would prefer for my bones I don't think would have a bearing on the constitutional issues here. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 I will rule on this one , too. MR. additional on WALKER: that. Your Honor, let me say something The plan before you -- 33 THE COURT: You're still referring to what ' s old 775? MR. WALKER : Yes, sir. THE COURT : All right. MR. WALKER: The plan before you commits the school district to encouraging participation by African-American students . THE COURT: It does. MR. WALKER: All right . THE COURT : All right. 780 . Old 780 . Ms . Johnson , what is that under our new system? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 775. An e-mail dated 5/25/01 from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Barry, page 258? THE COURT: A letter from Ms . Springer to Mr. Washington? No. Hang on just a minute. I've got the wrong -- what did you say it is, Ms. Johnson? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY : The old 780? THE COURT : Yes . THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Is now 775 , an e-mail dated 05/25/01 from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Barry. THE COURT: Hum. From who? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: From Bonnie Lesley. THE COURT: To whom? Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Debbie Barry. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: All right. Just a moment. Now, this is May 25, 2001, after the report of March 15. This is submitted -- it relates to something beyond middle school evaluation. All right. Well, let me explain. We may have misspoken about this one. I think that Mr. Jodie Carter will be talking about the Plato labs. It would be our position that the Plato labs were working to try to at least help students at McClellan, where they needed the most. So the first part of this exhibit, your Honor, and we may have misspoken there, relates to the Plato labs. Now, it's not presented here as an exhibit that we plan to introduce . It is one that we will make use of when Dr. Lesley testifies, and also when Mr. Jodie Carter testifies. THE COURT: Tell me how, for example, when Lesley testifies, how you will make use of it. MR. WALKER: Well, I may not even use it. If she talks about the Plato labs and gives the Court some idea of what the Plato labs were intended to accomplish and whether they were stopped, and if the testimony does not reflect a need to use this, then we won't. This is basically to refresh one's recollection more than anything else, but if I understood the Court's directive, if we plan to make almost any kind of use of any of these things, we should at least let the other side know Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about it in advance . These are not -- hopefully not putting things in to be admitted because not everything that we put here will necessarily be admitted, your Honor. We may make some reference to them. THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to require you to offer evidence, Mr. Walker. I'm going to absent unusual 35 circumstances, if you offer evidence, I'll rule on it if there's an objection . But I'm not requiring you, just because you list something as an exhibit or a witness, I'm not requiring you to call a witness or to put an exhibit in. I'll see if Mr. Heller wants to respond t o that. Mr . Heller, do you have any response to that? So MR. HELLER: Your Honor, Mr. Walker listed this as something for -- related to guidance and counseling. He said he may have misspoken. Maybe that's what he was referring to. But his explanation didn't say anything about guidance and counseling. In the Plato labs, Dr. Lesley's testimony will be about advanced placement courses and THE COURT: You're talking faster than I'm hearing. MR. HELLER: I'm sorry. Dr. Lesley's testimony will be about advanced placement, and the Plato labs don't have anything to do with that. That's a self-paced program that was being used to help students do some makeup work. Mr. Walker said Jodie Carter will testify about what happened at McClellan. This exhibit has to do with Dr. Lesley's knowledge Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 36 of the existence of a Plato lab at Central. So it doesn't even tie in with that. THE COURT: Well, you know, I've only got so many rulings in me, so I think I'll wait and see if this comes up before I rule. Mr. Walker has indicated that it may not be tendered. I don't want to waste a ruling. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, part of what we have here is Dr. Lesley's testimony that they're trying to get all these kids into pre-AP and AP courses, and the Plato lab is one of those things where -- which they put into place to get these kids who are way behind into a status where they may be able to succeed in AP courses, once placed there. That's why we wanted to address it. But I think, your Honor, if you could just defer on this, it would probably serve, as many of them, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let's go, I believe, 786, the old 786. What is that now, Ms. Johnson? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 778, a memo dated 2/24/99 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Walker, I'll hear from you on that. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, if I may be heard first, we'd like to withdraw our objection to that exhibit. what? THE COURT: All right. Let's go to 802, which is now Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 794-A, deposition of school board member Sue Strickland. THE COURT: All right. Here is what I'm -- 794-A, I'm going to require designations, Mr. Walker, on what portions of those depositions you intend to use, and I'm going to require counterdesignations by the -- in response to those by LRSD. How long do you need to get the designations in? MR. WALKER: Just a moment, your Honor. Your Honor, we have listed Ms. Strickland as a witness as well. We've submitted her deposition in part so that if it becomes necessary, it can be used to refresh her recollection on a matter that she addressed regarding the three subjects that she is related to. It may not be necessary to put it in. Now, I expect, among other things, for her to say that she did not find the superintendent of schools, Dr. Carnine, to be a credible person. And also I intend to show either a knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the plan as it relates to those sections, especially AP courses and things like that. THE COURT: In other words, you're not going to use the deposition as evidence by getting up and saying, I'm going to read now from the deposition of someone? MR. WALKER: No, sir . THE COURT: You're not? MR. WALKER: That's not my intent. The depositions that we have identified are depositions of persons that we have Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 also identified as witnesses. THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: We took more depositions and did not identify all those persons. 38 THE COURT: Let me say this: I would likely exclude the reading from a deposition if there haven't been designations done, if you do it without -- I realize for impeachment or refreshing memory, I don't see anything wrong with that, but just to get up cold and read them, as you normally can do if a party or principal of a party is -- you have a deposition of one of those people under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Rules of Evidence, but I think I understand you to say that these depositions that are referenced in 802, which is now 794-A, you're not going to offer them outright, but you're going to use them for impeachment or refreshing recollection, if necessary. a fair statement? Is that MR. WALKER: If necessary, or will designate at some time in sufficient time for the district to be on notice the portions THE COURT : Designate by 5 p.m. on Monday. MR. WALKER: Let us have until Wednesday, your Honor. You ' re giving us different dates. If you give us until Wednesday on everything, I think that would -- THE COURT: They've got to counterdesignate, I think Christa R. Newburg, RMR , CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 is the problem. MR. WALKER: Well, in terms of that, it's not -- it's only 15 or -- this deposition in substance is only 30 pages. THE COURT: I'll compromise with you. 5 p.m. on Tuesday. MR. WALKER: Maybe we can get everything in by Tuesday on our side, and then the district would have a day or two. THE COURT: I'll have them do it by Thursday. Anything you plan to read, have your designations in by 5 p.m. Tuesday. MR. WALKER: That's fine, your Honor. THE COURT: And counterdesignations by LRSD should be in by 5 p.m. Thursday of next week. All right. Let's take about a ten- or 15-minute recess. I'm going to borrow these exhibits, if you don't mind, during the recess. I'm going to take another look at them. We're in recess. Be at ease . (Recess at 9:26 a.m. , until 9:50 a.m.) THE COURT: I appreciate y'all's patience, if you had any. You're dealing with a slow learner, so it may take a little longer for me to studify. Put a \"sic\" after the \"studify\" so the Eighth Circuit won't think I didn't know any better. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 All right. Let's -- by the way, there's been several references to ALP testing. Mr. Walker, can you explain that to me? Come to the lectern here. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, it's ALT. THE COURT : ALT . Okay. MR. WALKER: Alternative learning tests. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. WALKER: Wait a minute. Achievement learning -- level test. Okay. I'm sorry. Achievement level test. I'm sorry. THE COURT: Thank you. I can't resist telling a story. When my law students would finish class over at the law school here, I'd give them a certificate certifying they were a WTP, a Wilson-trained person. And I had one of my former students on the stand one time before Judge Eisele, and I asked, \"Is it true you are a certified WTP?\" And Judge Eisele immediately said, \"What's that? 11 Well, I had one before another judge whose name I won't mention, and I said, \"Are you a certified WTP?\" And that person said, \"I certainly am,\" and that judge never asked a question, just went on. I was kind of that way about ALT. I was kind of embarrassed because it had been referred to, but I now know and I'm glad. Let's talk about No. 791. Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 THE COURT: What is that number now , Ms . Johnson? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY : The old 791 is now 783, a memo dated 5/3/99 regarding visit -- THE COURT: No, I'm looking at an agenda dated May 4, 1998. Is that what -- MR. HELLER: Your Honor, that ' s the second page of the exhibit, as I've got it. THE COURT: Oh , that's right. Okay. So 791 is now what? 783? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes, yes. THE COURT: Mr. Walker, I assume you read my letter of yesterday. MR. WALKER: Yes. THE COURT : In which I , in effect, said I was impressed with what you said, but uninformed . So you need to tell me what you meant there . Do you want to authenticate pages 2 and 3? MR. WALKER: Let's see. The first page is the agenda of a meeting that took place on May 4 , 1998, and the second page are the notes of Ms . Springer regarding the meeting with Mrs. Elston before that meeting . THE COURT : If you will, keep your voice up a little. I'm a little hard of hearing . MR . WALKER: I'm sorry, your Honor. THE COURT : I don't -- my second page is entitled -- Christa R. Newburg , RMR , CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 also entitled \"agenda ,\" got \"secondary counselors' workshop,\" and I don't see any notes here by anybody. MR. WALKER: Just a moment. Let me visit with Mr. Heller a moment. THE COURT: Surely. 42 MR. WALKER: All right. Your Honor, I understand we may have them out of order . We have the same pages. The first page will be -- THE COURT: You'll need to get to the lectern here so my secret agents can hear you. MR. WALKER: The first page would be the May 3, 1999, visit to Little Rock School District's Administration and Pupil Services Building by Ms. Springer. THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: And the second would be the agenda. THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: And the third would be -- it would have time lines and pre-college counseling. THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: And conclusions and recommendations. And these exhibits will go to the counseling subject that Mrs. Elston will be testifying about. THE COURT: Mr. Heller, let me hear from you. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, our objection goes to the first page, which is dated May 3, 1999, Ms. Springer's notes. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 They're hearsay. And she is now listed as a witness to testify in this proceeding. THE COURT: What's your replication to that, Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: This is not an evidentiary exhibit. only becomes one in the event that Mrs. Elston testifies a It particular way. But I think that what we're using, what we're showing here, your Honor, is that there are certain things that we were informed of with respect to the counseling program. The counseling -- and that preceded the meeting regarding counseling by one day. And then there is another exhibit that relates to it. So when we examine Mrs. Elston or when anyone examines Mrs. Elston, we'll be able to demonstrate that at least some of these things that she said were in place to enhance counseling services were at least discussed at some point or another. She should have good information or at least she ought to be able to give competent information regarding these subjects because she will acknowledge, we believe, that she did have this meeting with Ms. Springer. THE COURT: I'll rule on that if it becomes relevant during the trial. MR. WALKER: Thank you. THE COURT: Let's look -- well, as a matter of fact, let me say this about the documents: I had indicated I was Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 going to rule by a letter. I'm going to remind y'all of that judge that we all hear about that had a seven-year-old son that he hadn't named yet because he couldn't make up his mind. I will try not to be that way, but I'm going to flip-flop. I'm not going to rule pretrial on the exhibits we've covered. I'm going to wait until we get to the trial. There may be some nuances in the testimony that might cause me to go a different direction, so I'm going to all those exhibits we covered earlier, I'm going to wait until the trial to rule on them when they're offered, and I'll allow you at the trial to make rifle-shot arguments for or against the admission, depending on which side you're on. Let's move now I need to find Mr. Walker's letter here. Refer, if you will, to paragraph seven of Mr. Walker's letter. By the way, if you send letters to me, please also send the original to the clerk, all of you. The clerk has a rule that they don't like filing copies. I don't understand that rule, but who am I to argue with the clerk? All right. Paragraph seven, Mr. Walker, you don't need to address that because I'm on your side. You don't want to turn me around. Mr. Heller, as I recall, Judge Wright said that anything post March 15 wouldn't be admissible. As a matter of fact, I think she gave you an A and B option, and you didn't like either one of them, objected to both of them, but said if you Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 had to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea, that you'd take B. So I'm not going to exclude these witnesses, but I caution you that I'm going to stand by Judge Wright's ruling that unless there's some powerful reason not to do so, that March 15 is the cutoff. Because that's when you said, we're unitary. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, that's an issue I'd like to address briefly. Judge Wright's ruling, and I've got the October 2 transcript where she made the ruling, which was followed by an order the following day, was based on Judge Wright's decision that the issue in the case was only whether or not our March 15 compliance report was accurate. And for that reason, she said we' ve got to show her -- since we said we complied as of March 15, that we've got to show her whether or not that ' s true and that that's the issue. But I think there's a somewhat broader issue in the case, and that's whether or not we substantially complied with the plan, the term of which ran through the end of that school year, beyond March 15. And there could also certainly be evidence that substantial compliance was had even if some aspects of it came even after the school year, let alone after March 15. So we had understood and hoped, your Honor, that the issues in the proceeding would be actually the Little Rock School District's substantial compliance with its desegregation plan and not limited to whether or not the March 15 compliance Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 report was accurate . I would like to tell the Court one thing about that compliance report. We could have and perhaps THE COURT: I don't see the issue as being whether that report is accurate in the sense of whether you've got a typo in it or not; it's whether or not you were in compliance as of that date. MR. HELLER: Well, but, your Honor, the plan requires substantial compliance , and the term of the plan ran through at least June. THE COURT : Three years. MR. HELLER: Right. So, you know, we could end up in a situation -- if we don't consider the entire term of the plan, we could end up in a situation where we could determine compliance as of March 15 and then come back and have to have another proceeding about whether we came into compliance by June or July. THE COURT: That's a distinct possibility, and I'll run that risk. I'm going to put what you've said just now under the heading of going down hard, but I'm going to stick with the March 15 deadline. Your objection to my ruling is noted and your exception is saved. Anything else we need to take up? I appreciate y'all's time. Apparently there is. MR. HELLER: I'm sorry, your Honor. With respect to your ruling that you would decide the exhibits at trial, did Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 that include the exhibits that are listed as rebuttal exhibits? Because we're still -- we've still got an argument that none of those relate to the rebuttal testimony. THE COURT: It does include those. I realize you object to them and say they're not rebuttal. It does not apply to the deposition designation, though. That's 80 -- whatever it is. I want designations and counterdesignations on the depositions. All right. Mr. Jones? You're familiar with the old adage that the quacking duck gets shot, aren't you? MR. SAM JONES: Absolutely, your Honor, so I'll try to bob and weave. I just wondered if the Court had a sense or a preference, having listened to the Court narrow down the issues, as to whether or not the Court desires my presence during Little Rock's unitary hearings, Mr. Steve Jones or anyone else, perhaps even including Mr. Roachell, who certainly can speak for himself. THE COURT: Well, you know, I'm highly reluctant to give an advisory opinion on that because what if some witness gets up and just volunteers something that's highly damaging to your client and you're not here? I mean, I'm a little bit at a loss to -- I would like to excuse you and tell you to go about your way because that will narrow the number of lawyers as well as the issues. But I'm a little chary of doing that. Let me hear from the other lawyers whether they think they Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 need to be here, and then I'll hear from Mr. Heller and ; Mr. Walker, whether they want you here or not, and then I'll answer your question. How is that for a deal? MR. SAM JONES: That's a deal, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. STEVE JONES: Well, your Honor, I don't know about need, but I do plan on being here. My experience has been that your concern is sometimes warranted, that issues arise that affect the other school districts when the basic issue before the Court at that point in time has not -- THE COURT: You're going to be here. That's fine. MR. STEVE JONES: So I plan on being here. 48 MR. ROACHELL: Your Honor, quack. I will also be here. The testimony -- I just need to keep up with the case, and the testimony occasionally presents an opportunity to cross-examine within the scope of my intervention. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Mr. Walker or Mr. Heller, do y'all have a position? If you don't, you're not required to speak. I take it by your failing to rise that you do not. All right. What says -- MR. SAM JONES: If the Court could give me the latitude, your Honor, to kind of feel my way along, be here at the beginning, and if the Court wouldn't be offended if I sense that my time could be best served elsewhere for particular Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 parts of the proceeding, I guess if I could go in and out and not offend the Court, that would be my preference. THE COURT: I won't make a commitment to you that I won't get offended , but I won't get offended by that. I will make that commitment. MR. SAM JONES: All right. 49 THE COURT: All right. I appreciate y'all being here on short notice. This is an important case. Y'all obviously realize that. We'll get the trial started. You've got deadlines for next week, and we'll get the trial started a week from Monday and conclude it that week, providence being willing, and then we'll have the findings of facts and conclusions of law. Sometime in August has been set for that. And I plan on ruling in the case well before the first killing frost. We're in recess. (Proceedings adjourned at 10:08 a.m.) C E R T I F I C A T E foregoing is a correct transcript from he above-entitled matter. Date: July 16, 2002 rista Newburg, United States Court Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter    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_1380","title":"Proceedings: ''Transcript of Hearing''","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":["2002-07-12"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Transcript of Hearing''"],"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/1380"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["74 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1336","title":"Proceedings: ''Telephone Conference''","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":["2002-07-09"],"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--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Telephone Conference''"],"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/1336"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["198 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1742","title":"District Court, plaintiff's motion in Limine.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"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":["2002-07-03"],"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 School District","Joshua intervenors","School employees","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","School integration","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, plaintiff's motion in Limine."],"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/1742"],"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":["320 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis 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. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion in Limine states: 1. May 15 Order: Joshua's Witness List. On May 15, 2002, the Court ordered the parties on or before June 21, 2002 to \"identify the name of each of their witnesses, the date and - time each witness will be called, and the anticipated time it will take for direct examination of each witness. A detailed statement must be included of each witnesses anticipated testimony on each issue the witness will address.\" Order filed May 15, 2002, p. 2 ( emphasis in original). Joshua's witness list is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As can be seen, Joshua failed to comply with the Court's order in every respect. Upon information and belief, Joshua has not even contacted many of the individuals identified to discuss their appearing at the hearing and testifying, and Joshua has no intention of calling all of the witnesses identified. The LRSD moves in limine that Joshua be ordered on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2002 to identify the date and time on which each witness will be called, to identify the issue(s) on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue. The LRSD further requests that Joshua be precluded from calling any witness for which it fails to provide this information on or before 5 :00 p.m. on July 10, 2002. Finally, the LRSD asks that Joshua be instructed to only identify witnesses that it has interviewed and confirmed their availability for the hearing. 2. May 15 Order: Joshua's Exhibits. On May 15, 2002, the Court also ordered the parties to exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21 , 2002. The Court further stated that \"[a]ny exhibit not pre-marked and exchanged on or before June 21, 2002 will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances. A copy of Joshua's Exhibit list and the exhibits provided to the LRSD are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Joshua failed to provide the LRSD with copies of Exhibits 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801 stating \"[r]equest is hereby made for those exhibits ... \" This request by Joshua is untimely. See Order filed July 1, 2002, p. 1. To the extent Joshua may be in possession of these documents, the LRSD moves in limine to exclude Joshua Exhibits 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. 3. May 15 Order: Exhibit 803. The LRSD also moves to exclude any additional documents which Joshua may intend to introduce as Exhibit 803. Joshua identified as Exhibit 803, \"The exhibits filed by the Little Rock School District for this hearing.\" This fails to comply with the Court's May 15, 2002 order, as the LRSD understood it. 4. May 9 Order: Good Faith. The Court stated in its order of May 9, 2002 that Joshua would be permitted to present additional evidence on the issue of the LRSD's good faith \"but only to the extent that: (a) it relates directly to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and student achievement; and (b) it does not duplicate testimony already presented by Joshua on the issue of good faith.\" Order filed May 9, 2002, p. 14 (emphasis in original). Consistent with the Court's Order, the LRSD moves in limine as follows: a. Sadie Mitchell. Joshua called Mitchell to testify on August 1 and 2, 2001. See Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 564-570 and August 2, 2001, pp. 848-896. Joshua specifically questioned Mitchell about student achievement (see,~. Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 575) and advance placement courses (see,~. Tr. August 1, 2001 , p. 600). Additional testimony from Mitchell on these issues would be duplicative. Accordingly, the LRSD moves to prohibit Joshua from questioning Mitchell about student achievement and advanced placement courses. 2 b. Junious Babbs. Joshua called Babbs to testify on July 5 and 6, 2001. See Tr. July 5, 2001 (all) and July 6, 2001 , pp. 283-340. Joshua specifically questioned Babbs about advanced placement courses (see,~' Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 219), guidance counseling (see,~. Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 228), extracurricular activities (see,~ Tr. July 5, 2001 , p. 218) and student achievement (see,~ Tr. July 5, 2001 , p. 231 ). Accordingly, the LRSD moves to prohibit Joshua calling Babbs as a witness. c. Exhibits. The LRSD moves to exclude the following exhibits not directly related to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and student achievement: 743, 746, 747, 749, 750, 752, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761 , 762, 763, 764, 771 , 773, 775, 777, 778, 779, 780, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789 801 and 802. 5. Relevance Generally. The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401,402 and 403. The LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. The LRSD also incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status and its Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 6. Jim Mosby and Jodie Carter. The LRSD also moves to exclude evidence and testimony related to the removal of Jim Mosby and Jodie Carter as the principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High School, respectively, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401,402 and 403. Both men are represented by counsel for Joshua, and filed Complaints against the LRSD on July 7, 2002 related to their removal which are now pending before this Court. The July 22 hearing on whether the LRSD should be declared unitary is not the appropriate forum to decide the merit of their Complaints, and this Court has a long-standing practice of not hearing individual claims as a part of this case. See,~' Docket No. 1874, Order filed June 30, 1993. 3 7. Rebuttal Evidence. This Court's order of May 15, 2002 granted Joshua 30 minutes to present rebuttal evidence pertaining to the three issues tried virtually to conclusion during previous hearings before Judge Wright. Joshua failed to identify any witnesses or exhibits for this purpose. Moreover, none of the witnesses or exhibits would reasonably be construed as \"true\" rebuttal, as defined by Judge Wright. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submitted no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua because it had all been previously outlined in the LRSD's Interim Report and/or Final Report. Therefore, the LRSD moves in limine that Joshua be prohibited from presenting any rebuttal evidence on July 22, 2002, at 8:30 a.m. 8. Letters from Joy Springer. Joy Springer is counsel for Joshua's paralegal, and she has not been identified as a witness. However, Joshua has identified as Exhibits 767- 776 a series of letters from her to District personnel related to individual student/parent complaints. The LRSD moves to exclude these letters for several reasons. First, the letters are hearsay reporting hearsay, and they fail to fall within any exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802 803 and 804. Second, the letters are irrelevant in that there is no evidence that these complaints were brought to the attention of the Board. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 and paragraph 5, supra. Third, any relevance is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice where no evidence will be presented that would allow this Court to assess the merit of the complaints made in the letters. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 9. Joshua Exhibit 791 . Joshua Exhibit 791 appears to be notes from a meeting with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, the LRSD's Director of Pupil Services. The LRSD assumes that the notes were prepared by Springer or another Joshua monitor. However, neither Springer nor any other Joshua monitor has been identified as a witness in this case. The LRSD moves to exclude Joshua Exhibit 791 for the same reasons set forth in paragraph 8 above. Joshua Exhibit 791 should also be excluded for an additional reason: the document, standing alone, cannot be 4 authenticated, and Joshua has not identified any witness who will be able to authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that its Motion in Lirnine be granted; that it be awarded the relief sought herein; and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRlCT 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) 37 ----~BY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on July 3, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA z~~~L,l -~ 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 F:IHOME\\FENDLEYILRSO 200 I ldes-mot-limine-7-09-02. wpd 5 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST REGARDING JULY 22-26, 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to call the following persons during the July 22-26, 2002 hearings: I. Ms. Sadie Mitchell - Associate Superintendent for School Services Will dis~uss guidance counseling and her oversight or lack of it within the schools. She will be called on July 23, 2002, and her testimony will be expected to take approximately ten minutes. 2. Mr. Junious Babbs - Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Will address extracurricular activities and his oversight of those activities as Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. His testimony will be approximately ten .... minutes and will occur on July 23, 2002. 3. Dr. Marian Lacey - Asst. Superintendent of Secondary Schools a EXHIBIT g 1 f Will discuss her oversight of the secondary schools with respect to guidance counseling advanced placement courses, and extracurricular activities. Her direct testimony will take approximately fifteen minutes. 4. Mr. Jodie Carter - Principal McClellan High School Will discuss special problems with advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and the District 's good faith . His testimony will take approximately two hours and will be presented on July 22, 2002. He will also discuss the support and involvement of school board members or the lack of. 5. Ms. Dorothy McDonald - Teacher Will discuss the District's counseling program and problems which affect A.mean American students which have not been effectively addressed by the District. Her testimony will take approximately fifteen minutes. 6. Dr. Michael Faucette - Teacher Central High School Will discuss in detail the problems with the administration of advanced placement courses, the racial effect of the placements, the manner in which the placements are made, how the placements tend to favor one group of children over another, the problems with scheduling and how those scheduling decisions interact with other decisions of placement and counseling; participation in extracurricular activities; the favor given to white students at Central High School; the disparate effect of advanced placement courses with respect to teaching, awards, and other opportunities; and he will discuss the District's good faith compliance. He testimony will presented on July 22nd and is expected to take approximately four hours on direct examination. 7. Ms. Pat Watson - Counselor at Hall High School 2 Will address the District's counseling program and how they are implemented. Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. 8. Mr. Kenneth Moore, Assistant Principal at Hall High S~hool Will discuss extracurricular activities and good faith compliance. His testimony will take approximately ten minutes and will be presented July 23, 2002. 9. Ms. Pam Mercer - Parent of Former Student of Central High School Will discuss her efforts as a parent with respect to securing fair and equitable treatment for her children, Crystal and Justin, while they were at Central and how she was rebuffed along the way. She will also discuss the atmosphere at Central High School as it relates to privilege being extended to white children from middle class families. It will also cover counseling and extracurricular activities. Ms. Mercer's testimony will take approximately twenty minutes on direct examination. l 0. Mr. Justin Mercer - Former Student at Central High School Will address the problems he experienced of a racial nature while at Central High School and his efforts to obtain assistance and help from teachers, counselors and administrators. His testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 11 . Crystal Mercer - Former Student at Central High School Will address the District 's counseling services from a African American student 's perspective. Her testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 12. Ms. Paulette Blevins - Former teacher at Central High School Will discuss how the grading system was manipulated so as to change grades and otherwise provide favor to white children at Central High School. Her testimony will take 3 approximately fifteen minutes on direct examination. 13 . Mr. Jimmy Mosby - Principal of Southwest Middle School Will discuss the efforts of the District to comply with the ~]an with respect to good faith, guidance counseling and extracurricular activities while at Southwest Middle School and Hall High School. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes on direct examination. 14. Ms. Sharon Brooks - Principal of Stephens Elementary School Will testify regarding good faith compliance and how she avoids it. The specific matter she will address will be unreported punishment without the involvement of a guidance counselor regarding the taking away of educational privileges for black boys for a period of two months while she was principal ofRightsell Elementary School. Her testimony will take ten minutes. I 5. Ms. Susie Davis - LRSD Coordinator of English Will discuss the efforts of the Instruction Department to communicate Instruction Department standards to principals and teachers with respect English and Reading and other subjects which she supervises in her capacity as special assistant to Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Although this is not her title, she was regarded as the agent for Dr. Lesley within the schools. She will also discuss the extent of her and Dr. Lesley's association with respect to principals and counselors. Her testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 16. Ray Gillespie - Fonner Athletic Director Will discuss his role with respect to extracurricular activities and monitoring activities to ensure the absence of racial discrimination. His testimony will take approximately fifteen 4 minutes. 17. Cassandra Norman - Principal at J.A. Fair High School Will discuss the District's good faith compliance and her school;'s disparate treatment of black and white students. She will also discuss the support and involvement of school board members or the lack of 18. Judith Pickering - Teacher - J.A. Fair High Schools Will discuss the racial atmosphere, advanced placement courses and extracurricular activities at J.A. Fair. Her testimony should take approximately fifteen minutes. 19. Foster Allen - Teacher at Central High Will discuss advance placement practices at Central High School and his relationship to those practices. His testimony will take five minutes. 20. Romona Horton and Bennie Horton - Parents of Former Central High Student Will discuss problems with AP placement of their child at Central High School. Their testimony will take five minutes a piece. 21 . Alisha Allmon - Teach er Will discuss advanced placement practices at Central High School and his relationship to those practices. Her testimony will take five minutes. 22. Chris Payne- Former Student at J.A. High School Will discuss his efforts to participate in Quiz Bowl at J. A. Fair. His testimony will take ten minutes. 23 . Ms. Sue Strickland, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Dr. Michael Daugherty, Mr. Tony Rose Mr. Larry Berkley, Ms. Judy Magness and Mr. H. Baker Kurrus 5 Will each give testimony regarding good faith compliance and their involvement in and knowledge of the development and implementation of guidance and counseling programs, advanced placement courses, regular courses, class sizes of regular courses, pupil teacher ratios between regular , advanced placement, honors and gifted and talented courses. Their testimony together is expected to take one hour on direct examination. 24. Jeanette Carter and Dr. Vertie Carter Will discuss problems which they experience with respect to the AP teachers and administrators and counselors regarding placement, retention and fair treatment in the AP program. Their testimony will take fifteen minutes. 25 . Ms. Ethel Dunbar - Principal Franklin Elementary School Will discuss elementary good faith compliance, gifted and talented courses, guidance counseling and the assistance received with respect to these issues from the Division of Instruction. Her testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 25. Mazie Phillips - Counselor at Fair High School Will address the District's counseling program and how they are implemented. Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. 26. Leon Adams - Director of Federal programs Will discuss efforts to use Title I funds to promote the educational interests of \"all\" children rather than the children who were the intended beneficiaries of those funds; the correlation between counseling services, advanced placement courses and good faith compliance. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes. 6 e . 27. D.J. Thames and Avis Thames - Student and Parent - Fair High School Will discuss the District's good faith compliance with respect to extracurricular activities. This testimony will take approximately ten minutes on direct examination. 28. Ann Marshall, Gene Jones, and Margie Powell - ODM Monitors Will discuss good faith compliance. Their testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 29. Ray Simon Will discuss the District 's decision and the reason for it to retreat from the remediation requirement for loan forgiveness. His testimony will address the roles of Drs. Ross and Carnine with respect to discontinuing emphasis upon remediation of Black students relative achievement levels. It will take approximately twenty minutes. The exhibit which he will address is an agreement between the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District the description of about which I am not certain. 30. Dr. Terrence Roberts Will address the issue of good faith compliance, guidance counseling and relationship between regular and advanced courses. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes and will be presented on July 23, 2002. 3 I . Dr. Stephen Ross Will testify about the District 's good faith compliance and advanced placement and honors courses. He will address the need for criteria for placement as will Dr. Roberts (see above). His testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 7 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501- 374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) .--, ' (_~?__, .. _./{ John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby state that a copy of the foregoing witness list has been hand delivered to Counsel for the Little Rock School District on this 24th day of June, 2 02. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' EXHIBIT LIST REGARDING JULY 22-26, 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to use the following documents during the July 22-26, 2002 hearings: 743 . E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley (page 182) 744. E-mail dated October 19, 2000 from Gary Smith to Bonnie Lesley (page 290) 745 . E-mail dated June 29, 2001 from Sueellen Mann to Gail Hester and subsequent dated July 2, 2001 (page 167) 746. E-mail dated January 18, 2001 from Junious Babbs to Kathy Lease (page 12) 747. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 191) 748. E-mail dated November 16, 2000 from Les Carnine to Bonnie Lesley 749. E-mail dated November 21 , 2000 from Ken Savage to Kathy Lease (page 38) 750. E-mail dated March 7, 2001 from Kathy Lease to T Rose and subsequent dated March 7, 2001 at 12:44 p.m. (page 7) 751 . E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Lionel Ward and subsequent 1  EXHIBIT ~ 752. 753. 754. 755. 756. 757. dated July 16, 2001 (page 88) E-mail dated July 14, 2001, July 15, 2001 and July 16, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Ken James (page 96) E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Chris Heller (page 102) E-mail dated April 18, 200 I from Bonnie Lesley to Kathy Lease and subsequent response (pages 708 and 709) E-mails dated October 25, 2000 from Bonnie to Irma Truett and Kathy Lease re: Benchmark scores (pages 16 and 17) E-mail dated June 28, 2001 8:00 p.m. from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 192 E-mail dated June 28, 2001 9:08 a.m. from Bonnie Lesley to members of her staff (Page 192 and 193) 758. E-mails dated September 29, 2000 between Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease re: Priorities 2000-01 (Page 51) 759. E-mail dated October 3, 2000 between Les Carnine. Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease Re: ALT Check-in (Page 50) 760. E-mail dated June 20, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Beverly Griffin re: semester test Exemption (Page 351) 761. E-mail dated June 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Clay Fendley (page 297) 762. F-mails dated June 29, 2001 between Sadie Mitchell, Deanna Eggeston and Bonnie Lesley (pages 2_18 - 219) 763 . E-mails dated February 12 and 13, 2001 Lesley, Ruffins, Lease and Carnine (page 19) 764. Email dated February 13, 2001 from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine (Pages 17 and 18) 765. Memo dated November 17, 2000 from Dr. Faucette to Mrs. Hargis re: exclusion of Regular English students fro Jennie Calder lecture 766. Email dated September 27, 2000 from Sadie Mitchell to Junious Babbs (Page 1) 2 767. Letter dated December 16, 1998 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 768. Letter dated February 18, 1999 to Sadie Mitchell from Joy Springer 769. Letter dated March 17, 1999 to Rudolph Howard from Joy Springer 770. Letter dated October 14, 1999 to James Washington from Joy Springer 771 . Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 772. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer re: Scouts 773 . Letter dated August 28, 2000 to Ray Gillespie from Joy Springer 774. Letter dated September 12, 2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 77 5. Letter dated October 10, 2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 776. Letter dated September 13, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 777. E-mail dated June 6, 2000 to Les Carnine from Don Stewart (Pages 100-0 1) 778. E-mail dated April 19, 2001 from Deanna Eggeston to Don Stewart (Page 37) 779. E-mail dated April 25, 2001 from Kathy Lease to Mark Mi!Ihollen 780. E-mail dated May 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Berry (Page 358) 781. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Clay Fendley to Bonnie Lesley 782. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Bonnie Lesley to Mary Paa! (Page 136) 783 . E-mail dated April 17-18, 2001 to Don Stewart from Bonnie Lesley 784. E-mail dated July 12, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart (240) 785 . E-mail dated February 28, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart 786. Memo dated February 24, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 787. Memo dated March l 1, 1999 to Les Carnine from James Washington 788. Letter dated April 12, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 3 789. Letter dated March 22, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 790. Letter dated April 26, 1999 to John Walker from Les Carnine 791 . Memo dated May 3, 1999 regarding visit to Pupil Services \u0026amp; Administration buildings  792. Email dated 9/30/300 from Marian Lacey to Sadie Mitchell w/attachments 793 . High School Master Schedule Audit, Little Rock School District 2001-2002 794. School Yearbooks for Central, Hall, McClellan, Fair, Hall and Parkview for school years 1998-99 through 2001-2002 795. Letter dated February 28, 2002 from Dr. Michael Faucette to Jane Welch regarding enrollment in Creative Writing course 796. Little Rock Central - Requests for Course - Creative Writing 797. Essay by Justin Mercer entitled: \"Black at Central: My 45 Years of Struggle\" 798. Memo dated August 4, 1999 from Bonnie Lesley to Ann Marshall 799. Academic awards reports for the period 1998 through 2002. 800. Rank Lists for Hall, Parkview, Central, McClellan and Fair for graduating senior classed for the period 1998 through 2002 801. LRSD Quarterly Status Reports - School Services - 1999 through 2002 802. Deposition of School Board Members - a. Sue Strickland b. Tony Rose c. Judy Magness d. Larry Berkley e. Katherine Mitchell 803 . The exhibits filed by the Little Rock School District for this hearing Joshua notes that some of the foregoing exhibits are in the exclusive possession of the Plaintiff. Request is hereby made for those exhibits which include numbers 793, 794, 799, 800. 801. 4 By: Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 / I LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 2:24 PM 'heller@fec.net' Latest Fax I had Aniia fax over to you ihe latest-a bunch of stuff on our literacy plan. 743 1. He already has a copy of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Other information is in the Interim and Final Compliance Reports. 2. He also has the test results for SAT9, Grade 4 Benchmark, and ORA-so those are the results. 3. I don't know what he means by monitoring reports. A The assessment program is outlined in several pages in the Compliance Report. 5. I can copy those policies and regs for him. Want me to go ahead and send? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/ 324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1 :44 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: RE: Needed Information-Important! Do you have dates for these three times? --Original Message-- From: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1 :15 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Needed Information-Important! Three times I sat in on sessions with Steve Ross along with other PRE staff. At no time did we review any NSF documents. The sessions focused on document review of the ESL and Pre-K Literacy reports. I have never \"consulted\" with him. I have never consulted with Dr. Roberts either. -Original Message-- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:07 PM To: ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA. PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE': CLEAVER, VANESSA; CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH: CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FINNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, ANN; GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSANDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, DOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE; KIILSGAARD, SHARON; KILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA; KOVACH, RENEE; LAJUANA RAINEY; LOYA, STELLA; MARION BALDWIN; MARTIN, PAULETTE: McCOY, EDDIE; McNEAL, MARIE; MILAM, JUDY; NEAL, LUCY; PAAL, MARY M.; PAUL, ANNITA; PERRITT, YORIKO U.; PRICE, PATRICIA; RYNDERS, PAULA; SMITH, GARY; SMITH, PAULA; TEETER, JUDY; WALLS, COLLE::N; WARD, LIONEL; WIWAMS, BARBARA; WILLIAMS, ED: WILSON, LEVANNA; WOODS, MARION Subject: Needed Information-Important! 182 \"\" smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original Message-- A From: CARNINE. L!:::SLIE V. W Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:59 PM To: MITC~ELL. SADIE Cc: NEAL, LUCY; LESLEY, BONNIE; L!:::ASE. KATHY R.; SMITH, GARY Subject: RE: Will we have the software available by 2nd Semester? What system(s) are being looked at? -Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:33 AM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: FVI/: Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original Message- From: SMITH, GARY Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:25 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: WARD, LIONEL; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; NEAL. LUCY; MITCHELL, SADIE; CAWTHON, FRANCES H.; LACEY, MARIAN G.; Subject: Dr. Lesley, ADAMS, LEON; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRADFORD, GAYLE; BRIGGS, MONA; BROADNAX, KAREN; CLEAVER, VANESSA; COLFORD, SUSAN: DAVIS. SUZI: DONALDSON, MABLE; Eddie McCoy; ELSTON, JO; FULLERTON, JAMES; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HAWKS. EVERETT; KEOWN, ADA: MARION BALDWIN; NORMAN, CASSANDRA R.; PRICE. PATRICIA; TATUM. KATHY; WYATT-ROSS. JANICE The consensus recommendation of the SAIP committee is for a SAIP be created for students at all grade levels who are not proficient based state mandated benchmark tests and/or District mandated Achievement Level Tests (ALT) - Our specific recommendations to implement this are;  obtain/create the software necessary to identify students not proficient on state benchmarks/district assessment that will also generate/print the adopted SAIP form with student information and test scores printed on the SAIP form  obtain/create the software that will generate/print specific strategies (along with and printed checklists for those who wish not to use computer) developed by a committee made up of teachers and curriculum specialists as a resource available for teachers to use (especially secondary teachers) - this can be attached to the SAIP form as needed  develop an \"instructional\" sheet for the SAIP form that will explain in more detail the information to documented and procedures to follow  provide training on the use of SAIP form directly to teachers (the exact training may have to be determined at a future date based on the development of software noted above) - delivery of training would need to be coordinated with staff development for most effective and comprehensive presentation to all teachers to all of you in Cyber Land - is there anything else I forgot? - thanks Gary 290 LESLEY, BONNIE - From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Message Flag: Due By: Flag Status: BABBS, JUNIOUS Monday, July 02, 2001 8:08 AM ELSTON, JO NEWBURN, LINDA; LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Counseling Program Kit Follow up Monday, July 09, 2001 5:00 PM Flagged It is positive to see that things are moving forward on this \"01 - 02 priority. 745 Prior to coming to closure, I ask that your look to set up a time to fill me in on the \"buy in\" of players called upon (committee members) to develop districtwide literature to be distributed. The connection to Curriculum and Instruction is a biggee that should be run through Dr. Lesley. I will look to give you a call a bit later regarding B/W high school scholarship information and the 3 - 4 year comparisons. To date, this information has not been provided. Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message- From: VANN, SUELLEN Sent: Friday, June 29. 2001 11 :08 AM To: HESTER. GAIL Cc: ELSTON, JO; BABBS. JUNIOUS Subject Counseling Program Kit Jo Evelyn Elston is in my office, and we're working on a counseling program kit with insert sheets. Mr. Babbs will pay for this out of his budget. I'm going to talk with Kristy Black about the design of the kit and sheets, but I figured we'd better give you the info for the quote since it looks like a pretty good-sized job. The kit will be one-pocket on right side with a business card slot; the kit will print front and back with one pocket. There won't be a separate \"wing\" like the recruitment kit had. Quantity: 25,000 Jo Evelyn likes the paper we used for the recruitment kit and insert sheets, so we could just go with those. The insert sheets: 1. JOBBS sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 -2. Early college planning sheet - print front only; quantity 20,000 3. PCEP sheet - print front only; quantity 20,000 4. What Does Counselor Do? sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 5. Counseling program sheet - print front and back; quantity 30,000 6. Couseling fact sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 The kit and insert sheets would print 4-color. Have I forgotten anything? No bleeds. THANKS! (Mr. Babbs, you might want to set up a lemonade stand on Sherman to pay for this!!!!!) Suellen 5. Vann; APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (SO 1) 324-2020 167 LESLEY, BONNIE - From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: To: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:06 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: RE: Section 2 Thanks for the input! We have been with the program evaluation consultant all qi3y, so I just finished editing the report to send to Bonnie. I will incorporate your changes and suggestions, and send it to her again. Do you want the Power Point as an Appendix or the outline for it incorporated into the body of the report? I'm so sorry I am just getting around to my email, but I'll take the heat for sending another correction. Not enough hours in the day!! Kathy PS--Thanks for the encouragement! ---Original Message--- From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:53 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Cc: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: PN: Section 2 Good information. Working with timelines and specific report information submissions for this division, I have not been able to dissect in great detail but my original thinking touches upon 2 - 3 items that may warrant some review. You will note that Brady is also being forwarded who can provide his thinking as well. Future compliance sessions will toss this about for further revision. 1. Inclusion of the power point presentation. ~ -When touching upon Or. Ross - It may be advantageous to refer to \"looks to build or acknowledges\" specific district W'ettorts as opposed to \"praising\". 3. It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission, we will include \"districtwide\" not be there yet bui this will help to serve as an indicator of established bas Ine information from which we will jump off of. Keep your chin up . . Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message- Frorn: LEASE. KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:14 PM To: LESLEY. BONNIE Cc: BABBS. JUNIOUS; DILLINGHAM. YVETTE; HUFFMAN, MAC; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; McCOY. EDDIE; SUMMERVILLE, ROSALYN P.; TRUETT, IRMA; WILLIAMS, ED Subject: Section 2  File: Oeseg Report (2.7.1).doc  Bonnie, Here is the first draft of Section 2.7.1. Please let me know what additions or revisions you want made. Thanks, Kathy PS-PRE folks-Look to see what I left out, what typos I have. and what needs tc be edited. Thanks 12 747 Chris, I am in LR this week-end and you can reach me at 868-4289. I can come to your office to help, or I can work from my office. Call if you need me. - Are we having fun yet? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District  3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: To: Monday, July 02, 2001 8:16 AM BRIGGS, MONA R. Subject: RE Thank you, my friend. I \"vegged\" all week-end, seriously \"vegged.\" I know this will be a HARD week. Yes, I hear Kathy is on his witness list. It'll be interesting. -Original Message- F rom: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:53 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: I have been thinking a lot about you. You can't let this bring on a stroke or something. You don't need this kind of pressure all by your self!! It is not worth it-no job is worth it. And you can't take on the woes of a district that has been screwing up for a decade or more. I hope Kathy does get called to testify. She needs to have to answer to John Walker and if it bodes ill for the district so be it! She and Carnine just waltzes out of here and leaves everyone else holding the rope. You make time for sleep and food!! /v\\ona R. Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand; then to be understood\" (Covey) -----Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:55 AM Tc: BRIGGS , MONA R. 191 STEWART, DON.ALO M: . From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:23 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS; Mitchell, Sadie; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M. Subject: Upper Division Cl2sses and Afric2n Americans Were you able to pull together the numbers--l2st year and this year's enrollment? John Walker also has called and is questioning his non involvement in the policy development(IKF). I told him I thought the evidence was so strong for Black kids and that I would send him the information. When was the first time he would have received the policy for comment? He is raising much the same issue-impact on black kids as Katherine ... lKF Subject: L::SL-'Y, BONNIE; CARNINE, LESUE V. RE: C~art Revisions Ken, Th2nks so much for this expl2nation of what happened. The important thing about making a mist2ke is finding a way not to make it again. I think you have done this, and we will all profii from ii. I know you fee! re2lly badly about this, but the most important thing is to correct the process. We all make mistcakes. We are committed to quality in PRE and that includes continuous improvement and continuous learning. This experience has provided us with both. What a bonus!' Thanks for helping with the corrections. I will take care of getting them to the appropriate Cabinet people and getting them redistributed to the Board. -Original Message- F rom: SAVAGE, KEN Sent: Tuesday, November 21 , 2000 10:31 AM To: LEASE. KATHY R. Subject: Chart Revisions Dr Lease, I have reviewed the charts that I created from the benchmark d2t2. When I creaied the charts originally I had encountered a problem simil2r io the one described by Dr. Lesley, but I specifically remember correcting ihe error prior to sending the charts to you. Needless to say, I was more than a little alamned that the charts you received contained errors because the charts I have appe2r to coincide with the data I have. I went on further to investigate by looking at the email I sent you. And there, big as day, the error had reappeared. So the c:-iarts I had sent you were incorrect because they were never updated in the manner that I expected. Here is what I believe happened based on what I remember and what I learned this morning: e: I created the charts in an Excel document that contained the data. I copied the charts only out into another document, creating what is called a linked object. I printed and reviewed the charts and this is when I found the error. I corrected the error and reopened the \"linked\" charts. They appear to have accepted the corrections. I emailed the file wiih the linked charts to you rather than the file containing the charts and data. Here's where the problem arose and information that I have just become aware of this morning. First, when using linked objects, each time you open the file you are given a choice to update the information. Unfortunately, I only sent you the ch2rts and not the daia that drives them. So regard less, you could not have updated the charts. Second, and more importantly, even though a chart has been updated previously, it will always revert back to the original chart that was corrected no matter how many times the data has been updated. Third, if the file with the original data is already open, when the \"linked\" item is opened it automatically updates without intervention. I believe that the second option above is what occurred. The charts were created, an error was encountered and corrected, the link was updated but the chart reverted back to its original when the file was closed. What I propose to do to prevent this kind of fiasco in the future is: 1. Only send charts embedded in files which cont2in the data--no linking. 2. Only create the \"linked\" charts after ALL data h~s been proofed and corrected. \" The erroneous data was only last year's data for black students in the comparison between this year and lasfyear for both) Math and Literacy. I 2m printing and will send ten revised copies of the charts. Ken. 38 LESLEY, BONNIE - From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:44 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS , RE: Research Committee Meeting 75a Bonnie said that the evaluations weren't part of the court submission. Is that still correct? If so, then it looks like we shoula slow down a bit and do It rigm. Are you In agreement? ----,. KL --Original Message--- From: BAS6S, JUNIOUS Sent: Wecnesday, March 07, 2001 12:36 PM To: L=.\u0026lt;1.SE, KATrlY R. Subject: RE: Research Committee Meeting Original thinking was to get another date scheduled prior to the March 15th couri submission but with iniorm2tion you h2ve nored, considerc::tion of a later date is necessary. I don't see major conflict. Junious C Babbs, Jr jcba bbs@stuasn .lrsd. kl 2.ar. us Little Rock School District - Original Message- F rom: LEASE. KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:27 PM To: 'trrose@ualr.edu'; BABBS. JUNIOUS Subject: Researc~ Committee Meeting Importance: High We have had another committee member who will not be able to come to the meeting on the 13th. We now have agenda meeting 2t 5:00, and Steve can only be with us by phone. What do you all think about postponing the meeting until after spring break? That would give John plenty of time to make revisions, and we can schedule a meeting when Steve can be with us. I hope to have the template/program evaluation guidelines completed by then as well. Let me know what you thin kl Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc. lrsd .kl2.ar. us 7 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:2.d. PM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: RE: Documents yes, th2nks. I need as2p. -Oriainal Messaae- From:  MITCHELL. SADIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:51 PM To: LESL::Y, BONNIE - Cc: WASHINGTON, CHARLOTTE Subject: Docum~nts We got the list of documents on file done but I forgot to remind Ch2rlotte to send it to you. She is gone for the day and it is on her computer. You will have it first thing in the morning. Sadie Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd .kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE A Sent: W To: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:24 PM WARD, LIONEL Subject: RE: SAIP He requested info from me. I told him I had given him all I had but that you are the administrator on this issue. I was following up to see if he had contacted you. -Original Message- From: WARD, LIONEL Sent Monday, July 16, 2001 4:29 PM To: LESLEY. BONNIE Subject: RE: SAIP Are you irying to tell me something? I have not received any such request from Mr. Walker. If he talks with me, I will talk to you about a proper response first. One basic problem with implementation is in the thought some might harbor which explains why their efforts started late in the game. I am sure some folks faced more struggles than others. Clearly, schools must satisfy the requirements with wise, careful and timely deliberations this year . ., ----__ ....  / --Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 3: 49 PM To: WARD, !..!ONEL SubjeC::: SAIP Lionel, h2s Mr. Walker requested anything from you about the implementation of SAIPs? If so, what did you send . to him? Thanks. v-- Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associace Superinte!7dent for Instruction Uttie Rock Scheel District 88 752 501/324-0567 (fax) - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE. Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8:16 AM To: JAMES, KENNETH Subject: RE: Work in Progress Absolutely! -Original Message- From: JAMES. KENNETH Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:54 AM To: L::SLEY, SONNIE Subject: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie: I agree. The work and time that you have invested in this will indeed pay off. as the testimony unfolds. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles all of this information and to observe her thought process. Ken -Original Message-- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:4.2 PM To: JAMES, KENNETH Subject: RE: Work in Progress When I left today, I left a lot still un-done, but I left feeling more and more certain that we have strong evidence that we did the plan. This is going to be helpful to me in remembering all the efforts-even if Chris decides not to use some of it as evidence. I think it will particularly be strong when we combine what Sadie has with ours in this Division. -Original Message- From: JAMES, KENNETH Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:34 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subjec~: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie: I have reviewed both documents and they are excellent at showing what has been accomplished in the are2s of evaluation and assessment 1 Great job' We will touch base tomorrow. Ken -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM To: 'heller@fec.net'; JAMES, KENNETH; MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evalu2tion. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of p2per that document our work and processes. In addition, ple2se see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback.  Fiie: 1 Program i:1aluation.doc \u0026gt;\u0026gt;  File: 1 Assessment Grid.doc  96 Little Rock, ArkaT1S2s 72206 501/324-2131 - 501/ 324 -'.)567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:41 PM 'heller@fec.net' JAMES, KENNETH SAIPs Mr. Walker requested on June 20 the follow: \"Please advise whether you have information regarding the District's implementation of STt!dent Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) as required by the State. If so, please share with this this office.\" I replied: \"You will find that information in the March 2001 Compliance Report in Section 2. 7. I do not have any information beyond what you will find there since the implementation is done at the school level. Leonel Ward is in charge of implementation.\" When I searched everything for the documents I needed from you, I found several memos in Learning Links that I had forgotten about-about the philosophy in implementing SAIP, sample SAIPs done by Price, Glasgow, and Davis, the memo establishing the committee to develop the program. the memo to the board, etc. Should I forward those to Mr. Walker as well? . Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District A 3001 5. Pulaski W little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM To: Subject: 'heller@fec.net'; JAMES, KENNETH; MITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, ple2se see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback. ~ 1 Program Evalualion.aoc i Assessment Grid.doc Dr. Sonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 5. Pulaski a :ttle Rock, Arkansas 72206 ~ 01/324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) 102 . LESLEY, BONNIE - From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Don Crary [dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1 :33 PM LESLEY, BONNIE mopierce@newfuturesforyouth.org Re: Computer with Access Great. We can pay for it. I'm sure it will be cheaper if it is purchased through the district contract. The district can invoice us and we will reimburse them for the cost. Don -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; To: 'dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org' \u0026lt;dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org\u0026gt; Cc: BRIGGS, MONA R. \u0026lt;MRBRIGG@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt;; PAAL, MARY M. \u0026lt;MMPAAL@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; Date: 04/18/2001 12:50 PM Subject: Computer with Access \u0026gt;I talked with Mona about your need for a dedicated computer somewhere in the \u0026gt;district so that your evaluator can come work on direct access to the data \u0026gt;base. She is arranging for an additional computer drop in the office that \u0026gt;Mary Paa! will have at Garland. Can you all purchase the computer out of . your budget? \u0026gt;Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u0026gt;Little Rock School District \u0026gt;3001 S. Pul;:3ski \u0026gt;Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 \u0026gt;501/324-2131 \u0026gt;501/324-0567 (fax) \u0026gt; \u0026gt; LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bonnie, LEASE, KA THY R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:32 PM LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL, SADIE; CAWTHON, FRANCES H.; LACEY, MARIAN G. RE: ALT Results --.......__ What group of principals did you meet with yesterday? Do I need to contact them? I explained to all of them when we did the testing calendar that we could get results back to everyone before school was out, if they followed the schedule. If there are some that we need to follow up with, please let me know who they are. We are returning ALT results as quickly as schools get them in. The whole purpose of setting up the schedule like it is centers around being able to get the results back to everyone before school is out. District results can't be calculated until  I schools are in. That is why it is imperative that everyone stay on schedule. Both teachers and parents will get their suits unless someone doesn't follow the schedule. Second grade results have all been returned to the schools, along with two copies of the parent report. High school preliminary results have been returned to Parkview and Fair. McClellan's results are here and are being scored. Central and Hall have not turned in their answer sheets yet. All make-ups were to have been completed by this past Monday. Reiests for high schools are due back on Friday. The first page of the parent report can be printed, but we can 't print the longitudinal report for parents unless all high schools are in.  708 Our elementary schools did a great job during 2nd grade testing; so if they keep that up, we will sail right through their scoring and printing. They have all of their results. .  \\/Ve're still missing two of the middle schools' Algebra I I geometry results as of this morning. We are having a scoring robiem with the high school science tests, but NWEA is working on it. The subject specific math and science tests require no retests, so that shouldn't hold things up. Also, we have provided data on request any school who wants to know last fall's ALT scores for their rising grade students. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Kathy ---Original Message---- F rom: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:37 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: ALT Results l met with a group of principals yesterday who suggested to me that if they can't receive their ALT results before school is out that there is no use in sending them at all. Kids and parents need them quickly, and the school needs them quickly in order to plan for next school year. What our your chances of being able to do that? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE \u0026amp; om: . ent: To: Subject: Rose.doc Paulette Mabry [pmabry@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:59 AM Bonnie Lesley; Brady Gadberry; Junious Babbs; Linda Austin; Marian G. Lacey; Sadie Mitchell Words to encourage us Thought you might enjoy this today as a way to jumpstart the afternoon when things seem impossible. Paulette LESLEY, BONNIE From: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: To: Wednesday, April 18, 200110:10 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: Cost of Tools for Learning (Fred Jones); Parent Component Importance: High The discounted costs of books is: 500 books @ $18.00 (regularly priced at 29.95) 300-499@ $18.50  0-299@ $18.95 0-199@ $19.95 Shipping for 500 is $546.75; it may be slightly less for fewer numbers but not significantly. RE: Parent involvement with training 709 GADBERRY, BRADY L. -From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:31 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS; FRANCES CAWTHON; Gadberry, Brady L.; Hurley, Richard; LESLEY, BONNIE; Leslie Carnine; LINDA WATSON; MARIAN LACEY; Milhollen, Mark; Sadie Mitchell; STEWART, DONALD M.; Vann, Suellen Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.ppt Steve Ross-Program Evaluation-.. FYI--Here is a copy of Steve's presentation to the Board. KL GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: To: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:32 AM GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: RE: PRE List Requested - ~hared with Babbs that I thought we could provide some assistance in PRE to make the surveying process a little easier.  eve got the equipment and the software! I just talked with Gene Jones to confirm his schedule, and he said that he was invited to the compliance meeting tomorrow morning. I told him, \"Great! See you then!\" KL ---Original Message- From: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8: 17 AM To: BABBS. JUNIOUS Cc: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: PRE List Requested We were told early in the year by Dr. Carnine that all surveys would be done through PRE. ----Original Message----- F rom: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:15 PM To : GADBERRY, BRADY L. Cc: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: FW: PRE List Requested To my knowledge Vic and I both allowed department \"Quality of Service Surveys\" that went to appropriate building staff to be returned and worked through our own division shops. What is your thinking to continue with this format or consideration through PRE ? Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us little Rock School District - Original Message- From: L~SE, KATHY R. Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:18AM To: 'Clay Fendley'; LESLEY, BONNIE; BABBS, JUNIOUS; MITCHELL. SADIE; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M. Cc: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: List Requested Dear Folks, Attached is the list of programs or strategies that have either received some evaluation services or have requested evaluaiion services. If you need additional information, please let me know. 15 Thanks, Kathy - \u0026lt;\u0026lt; File: Addition2I Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation.doc GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent:  To: Subject: logo memo.doc LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, October 27, 2000 2:52 PM MITCHELL, SADIE; LESLEY, BONNIE; BABBS, JUNIOUS; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M. Memo to Gene Jones Here is what I am having Irma send on Monday. If you see anything that needs to be changed, let her know ASAP. KL GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:37 PM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V.; MITCHELL, SADIE; BABBS, JUNIOUS; GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: FW: Benchmark Scores - ear Folks. If Bonnie wants to continua lly harass me that is one thing , but I would appreciate it if she didn't pick on my assistant. Please read the exchanges below. She also left Irma a voice message that was very curt. Irma h2s been working like a dog in room 16 to finish up the answer documents for the CRTs, so she wasn't immediately available to read email or answer the telephone. No one came down here looking for her, so she didn't know that there was an urgent message. I emailed a reply message to Bonnie and sent you all a blind copy; so I'm sure I'll be in trouble again. However, there has to be an end to this. We are working as hard as we can to produce these test reports, implement the assessment program, and produce program evaluations. I don't know how much more I can stand. She also continues to work behind my back through Eddie McCoy. This is ridiculous!! Who could be successful in such an environment? I'm sorry for ranting, but I am exhausted mentally, physically, and emotionally. Kathy -Original Message- From: TRUETT, IRMA Sent: Wednesday, October 25. 2000 8:21 PM To: LEASE. KATHY R. Subject: FW: Benchmark Sccres -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 5:05 PM To: TRUETT, IRMA Subject: RE: Benchmark Sccres I'm sorry, Irma, but I can't accept that response. -Original Message- From: TRUETT, IRMA Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 2:08 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Benchmark Sccres Sorry, I'm just now getting your e-mail, but I've been working in room 16. I don't have this information and frorn what I underst2nd Dr. Lease has it with her to give to the principals this afternoon. Sorry! - Original Message- 16 From: L::SLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 9:44 AM To: TRUETT, IRMA Subject: Benchmark Scores I need copies of the state test results by school in my office asap. Board members and others are calling for information. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: Bonnie, LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Benchmark Scores Irma forwarded your messages to her about the test scores. As I told you when we met with Suellen, I would have your curriculum copies ready by Friday. They are ready now. After learning that you were insistent on having the scores immediately, I stayed late tonight and finished them up. Irma came back down here from home to help me. I am just waiting on your initials on the memos. I will bring them to the Institute tomorrow. Irma can come pick them up and make copies. I understood Dr. Carnine to say that the Board reports could be sent in the Friday report. I had them ready at the Board meeting, but he didn't want them distributed until we had more time to confirm the data. Since you  ave asked for them, I printed what we have at this time in draft copy. I will give the copies to you that are printed for the oard. If you think they need to be sent by special courier rather than in the Friday report, that will be your choice. I was nly trying to follow the directions I was given. If you needed the scores so quickly, why didn't you call me out of the meeting today? Irma didn't even know where we had secured the copies of the reports. It was very unfair of you to keep harassing her and making her feel badly because she couldn't produce the reports instantly for you. If you need something, please do me the courtesy of asking me for it. I understood that the Friday timeline was satisfactory with you. If it wasn't, you should have let me know. Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.k12.ar.us 17 Subject: RE: This has been the week from hell. I hear that Walker may call Kathy to testify. Of course, that may not be good for the district. We'll see. I'm so tired I could fall on my face. Sooooooo glad it's Friday! -Original Message- From: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:00 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Bonnie, I hate all this, don't you? I guess you will have your \"day in court.\" Too bad Kathy didn't get in on it ... I understand from Eddie that she took all her files with her. What a deal. Surely, the judge will see through this and let us get on with our lives. Walker just doesn't want to give up those big bucks he makes off of us. Hope you have some down time somewhere along the line. Mona R. Brig~ N1iadI~ [~~~I Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Undersfal7d; then to be understood\" (Covey) -----Original Message----F rom: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: CHAPMAN, SUSAN; GLENN, RANDALL; WATSON, LINDA; ELSTON, JO; WIEDOWER, JULIE; EGGLESTON, DEANA; ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA, PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE'; CLEAVER, VANESSA;  CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH; CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FI!\\JNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, A~~N; GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSAt\\JDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, DOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE;_ l92 Subject: RE: This has been the week from hell. I hear that Walker may call Kathy to testify. Of course, that may not be good for the district. We'll see. I'm so tired I could fall on my face. Sooooooo glad it's Friday! -Original Message- Frorn: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:00 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Bonnie, I hate all this, don't you? I guess you will have your \"day in court.\" Too bad Kathy didn't get in on it ... I understand from Eddie that she took ell her files with her. What a deal. Surely, the judge will see through this and let us get on with our lives. Walker just doesn't want to give up those big bucks he makes off of us. Hope you have some down time somewhere along the line. Mona R. Brig~ Mia-a,~ [~~~I Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand; then to be understood\" (Covey) -----Original Message----From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: CHAPMAN, SUSAN; GLENN, RANDALL; WATSON, LINDA; ELSTON, JO; WIEDOWER, JULIE; EGGLESTON, DEANA; ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA, PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE'; CLEAVER, VANESSA;  CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH; CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FINNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, ANN: GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSAt'\\JDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, DOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE; 192 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: ?57 KIILSGAARD, SHARON; KILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA; KOVACH, RENEE: LAJUANA RAINEY; LOYA, STELLA; MARION BALDWIN; MARTIN, PAULETTE; McCOY, EDDIE; McNEAL, MARIE; MILAM, JUDY; NEAL, LUCY; PAAL, MARY M.; PAUL, ANNITA; PERRITT, YORIKO U.; PRICE, PATRICIA; RYNDERS, PAULA; SMITH, GARY; SMITH, PAULA; TEETER, JUDY; WALLS, COLLEEN; WARD, LIONEL; WILLIAMS, BARBARA; WILLIAMS, ED; WILSON, LEVANNA; WOODS, MARION Cc: 'heller@fec.net' Subject: I just spoke with Chris Heller, our attorney. He asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. Please make sure the staff not named in th is e-mail also understand this directive. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/3 24-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, June 29, 2001 2:47 PM ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN , LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA, PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE'; CLEAVER, VANESSA; CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH; CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FINNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, ANN; GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSANDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, OOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE; KIILSGAARO, SHARON; KILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA; KOVACH, RENEE; LAJUANA RAINEY; LOYA, STELLA; MARION BALDWIN; MARTIN, PAULETTE; McCOY, EDDIE; McNEAL, MARIE; MILAM, JUDY; NEAL, LUCY; PAAL, MARY M. ; PAUL, ANNITA; PERRITT, YORIKO U.; PRICE, PATRICIA; RYNDERS, PAULA; SMITH, GARY; SMITH, PAULA; TEETER, JUDY; WALLS, COLLEEN; WARD, LIONEL; WILLIAMS, BARBARA; WILLIAMS, ED; WILSON, LEVANNA; WOODS, MARION; BABBS, JUNIOUS; FRANCES CAWTHON; GADBERRY, BRADY L. ; HURLEY, RICHARD; JAMES, KENNETH; LINDA WATSON; MARIAN LACEY; MILHOLLEN, MARK; Sadie Mitchell; STEWART, DONALD M.; VANN, SUELLEN; WATSON, LINDA; ANDERSON, BARBARA; ASHLEY, VIRGINIA; BRANCH, SAMUEL; BROOKS, SHARON; CARSON, CHERYL; CARTER, LILLIE; COURTNEY, THERESA; COX, ELEANOR; DARIAN SMITH; DEBORAH MITCHELL; ETHEL DUNBAR; Faith Donovan; FIELDS, FREDERICK; GOLSTON, MARY; HALL, DONNA; HARKEY, JANE; HOBBS, FELICIA L; JONES, BEVERLY; KEOWN, ADA; Lillie Scull; MANGAN, ANN; MANNO, ROBERTA; MARY BARKSDALE; MENKING, MARY; MORGAN, SCOTT; NANCY ACRE; OLIVER, MICHAEL; PHILLIPS, TABITHA; SHARON BROOKS; SMITH, MARY; TAYLOR, LESLIE; TUCKER, JANIS A.; WILSON, JANICE M. ; WORM, JERRY; ZEIGLER, GWEN S.; BERRY, DEBORAH; BLAYLOCK, ANN; FULLERTON, JAMES; HUDSON, ELOUISE; Larry Buck; MOSBY, JIMMY; PATTERSON, DAVID; ROUSSEAU, NANCY; SAIN, LLOYD ORA Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern 193 the AL Ts, and so they were down there yesterday and again today just kind of picking it up, but they do not necessarily know what they are supposed to be doing. They need direction, and I don't feel that I should provide it. - ow do you want to handle this? LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: To: Monday, October 02, 2000 6:48 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: FW: Priorities 2000-2001 Dr. C., I'm sorry. I guess I don't quite know what to do with the plan I sent to Bonnie. I guess I missed the mark. I thought we were to develop what we were doing in our department to meet the areas you outlined in your critical priorities processes. Do you want me to send the parts to the people Bonnie mentioned below? Or are you going to put it all together using what you want out of what we sent? Let me know what you want me to do. KL -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:04 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: Priorities 2000-2001 You need to send the technology stuff to Lucy Neal. You need to send the Campus Leadership stuff to Sadie Mitchell. I suggest that you forward the other two pieces directly to Dr. Carnine. They are much more detailed than the other items in the Division of Instruction Work Plan and therefore don't \"fit\" with what we have. Alsp; I know nothing about the Quality Initiative Plan, so that makes no sense. to.roe0 Perhaps he can just include your items separately.     -- -  -  -0-riginal Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 2:50 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: Priorities 2000-2001 Importance: High I had massive computer failures today. It took Ed, Ken, Virginia, and Irma to help me get it all back. Here are the priorities from PRE. Call me, if you want me to go over them with you. Thanks, Kathy \u0026lt;\u0026lt; File: Priority II Technology 2000-2001 .doc   File: Priority 11I-2000.doc   File: Priority IV InstructionAssessment. doc   File: Priority IV Instruction-evaluation.doc \u0026gt;\u0026gt; Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd .k12.ar.us 51 sounds like the our data is available. - ESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: Dr. C., LEASE, KA THY R. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:09 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. CTA issues 75.1 Did Clementine come in today to discuss assessment issues with you? I invited her in last spring to talk with me, but she never came. If she has some specific issues that you think we need to address in the questionnaire, let me know. I started drafting some ideas about questions, but I think I need some input from you. It looks like from one of the emails you sent that folks have been communicating with you about their concerns. They may have shared some things we haven't thought about. Let me know if you have any time tomorrow afternoon to visit with me (phone or in person) about the survey. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl 2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE a rorn: LEASE, KA THY R.  ent: To: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 5:45 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: RE: ALT Check-In, Etc. This is pure fabrication . This is not the situation here in PRE. We have a fox in the hen house. I thought this kind of thing was supposed to be over. The digs have continued. The ALT process has to have someone who shepherds it. I said originally that I would need Gayle at least six weeks to two months. I fully understand the strain that Sadie is under because she has come to depend on Gayle as well. If Gayle cannot fulfill her commitment with ALT, then I think she would let me know. She had to go over to the administration building to get some work done to be ready for the Bi-Racial committee report that she is scheduled to give tonight. Roz told her that she could take care of anyone who checked in things today. I guess the real question is that if my staff thinks they are having a problem \"handling\" the ALT today, why didn't they contact me? We had Ed here scanning and scoring, and Irma received no calls that she couldn't handle. I'm afraid I am left with no other conclusion but that this is continued harassment by the person that I thought had agreed to quit harassing. Can you help me with any other explanation? KL -Original Message- From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 11 :10 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Cc: Mijchell, Sadie Subject: FW: ALT Check-In, Etc. I know you know how assumptions can get you in trouble. Obviously, there appears to be a communication problem and I would hope you and Sadie could work it out. -Original Message- Arom: LESL!::Y, BONNIE wrent: Tuesday, October 03. 2000 10:55 AM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: ALT Check-In, Etc. I have had three complaints already today-two from IRC staff and one from building-level. Gayle has returned to downtown, and Kathy is sitting in the school improvement meetings. Neither of them organized the staff for the return cif so 76D - LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: Thanks, Bev. -Original Message- LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:13 PM GRIFFIN, BEVERLY RE Semester Test Exemption From: .GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:15 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Semester Test Exemption i gave a copy of th~ minutes from the February Board meeting to Mr:3. Lacey earlier this week. I don't think I have;--, copy of the kids proposal, but I will check. l was under the impression that this action was for this years seniors only. I might be wrong . . . but, it might be worth checking with Board members to see if they intended for it to be a permanent change to the policy. I will fax you the minutes in just a minute. -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE , Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 12:51 PM To: GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Subject: Semester Test Exemption Bev, there is wide disagreement about what people remember as the motion the board made regarding the exemption of seniors from their spring semester tests. I don't remember the month they did that-probably February or March? Will you send to me the text of the motion, as well as the text of the language used by the kids in their proposal. I don't have that and will need it to update those regulations/policies. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, .Arkansas 72206 501/324~2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1 :12 PM TRUETT, IRMA Compliance i - - --- ~ The compliance report lists several \"program evaluations\" that PRE reported that they had completed, but which I have never seen. Please provide me with three copies each of the following reports. They have been requested by Mr. Walker. '  Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Program  parter Scho0I W'.ampus Leadership Teams Engiish as a Second Language , Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith Colleae Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program - Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 351 - LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, June 25, 2001 12:37 PM 'Clay Fendley'; 'heller@fec.net' RE: Meeting schedule Yea! Thanks you! I can't tell you how important this is! 76/ I just talked with Ann Brown. She wanted all the test scores. I put her off until the end of the week. We need to talk about what to give her. -Original Message- From: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 12:42 PM To: BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US Cc: Chris Heller Subject: RE: Meeting schedule Leaving at 1 :05 on the 6th is fine. We will tell Walker that if he wants to call you as a witness, he will need to call you on the 5th. Thanks. \u0026gt; \"LESLEY, BONNIE\" \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; 06/25/0111:49AM \u0026gt; I just called the airlines. I would need to catch a plane at 1 :05 on the 6th to get to Amarillo in time for the rehearsal dinner for this big wedding. If I can't do that, then the latest I could leave to get there at all on Friday is at.5:35 Then I would-come. home on Sunday. What do you advise? \u0026gt; -Original Message- \u0026gt; From: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] \u0026gt; Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:41 AM \u0026gt; To: BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US; blgadbe@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us; \u0026gt; DMSTEWA@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us; lvcami@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us; \u0026gt; SMMitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us; JCBABBS@STUASN.LRSD.K12.AR.US \u0026gt; Cc: Chris Heller; KJAMES@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us \u0026gt; Subject: Meeting schedule \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Here's the meeting schedule so far: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Mr. Gadberry - Wednesday at 2:00 at our office. \u0026gt; Dr. Lesley - Thursday at 1 :DO at our office. \u0026gt; Ms. Mitchell - Friday at 9:00 at our office. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; We should get Joshua's objections today and have requested a witness list \u0026gt; by Wednesday. \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Weare leaving Monday (July 2) open until we get Joshua's witness list. \u0026gt; Everybody plan on meeting Tuesday (July 3) all day at our office. Let me \u0026gt; know if that presents a problem for you, and we can try to work around \u0026gt; your schedu_le. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Remember, the most important thing in preparation for the hearing is for \u0026gt; you to know what's in the Revised Plan and the interim and final \u0026gt; compliance reports. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; We will provide copies of Joshua's objections as soon as they are \u0026gt; received. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Let me know if you have any questions. \u0026gt; selected to receive Merit Scholarship awards. The info in italics is from the National Merit web site. So, of the 1.2 million entrants, only 7,900 are named Finalists for National Merit scholarships and corporate-sponsored scholarships. That amounts to 6/10 of 1 % of the entrants. Mr. Walker's statement on page 22 is: \"We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation.\" THIS IS INCORRECT. Without reviewing 19 years of data (and we don't have al(b:f the data for those years), as recently as 4 years ago Salonica Gray, an A.fiican American female senior at Central, was a National Merit Finalist. Hope this helps! Suellen 5. Vann, APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501) 324-2020 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 200111 :36 AM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: RE: ~ am wondering how he is feeling as well. This is baptism by fire. -Original Message- From:  MITCHELL. SADIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:29 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject RE: I panicked when I got here and saw all of the stuff from John. I am worried about Dr. James. I hope he will be able to handle all of this. Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original MessageFrom: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:09 AM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: RE: He was kind of angry that we are even attempting to respond to this stuff. He asked me what he needed to do to make sure everyone understands that we are not to play Mr. Walker's game. How ya doing today? -Original Message- From: MITCHEU, SADIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:18 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: :) Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us - __1!_8_ ------ - - --- - ------ --- - - -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:04 AM To: MITCHELL, SADIE; EGGLESTON, DEANA; GADBERRY, B~DY L.; STEWART, DONALD M.; BABBS, JUNIOUS; JAMES, KENNETH Cc: 'heller@fec.net' Subject: RE: I just spoke with Chris Heller, and he asked me to tell all of you that we are not going to make this information (copies of our invitations and documents sent to Mr.Walker or Ms. Springer) available to Mr. Walker. It is without exception stuff we have already sent to him:\"- He also asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. -Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:03 AM To: EGGLESTON, DEANA Cc: LESLEY, BONNIE; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M.; BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: RE: Thank you Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us -Original Message- From: EGGLESTON, DEANA Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:38 AM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: RE: Everyone sent the information when it was requested, however, I'm not sure if they have sent recent documents since his original request. I just spoke with Cly and he said to make the folders we have available to Joy on Monday as per \"her request, but for me to not to put the documents in any particular order (ie. date, subject, etc.) -  - ------  - .. ~.. . -- --- ---- .. -- - . ___ .. Deana -Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:41 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE; STEWART, DONALD M.; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; BABBS, JUNIOUS; JAMES, KENNETH   Cc: EGGLESTON, DEANA Subject: Mr. Walker sent a fax requesting \"all invitations to Ms. Springer or Mr. Walker to meetings of any kind, as well as copies of any documents you have sent to them over the past three years. Also any document of whether Mr. Walker or Ms. Springer actually attended the meetings to which you invited them.\" I think we already sent this information to Mr. Babbs and he compiled it. Is this correct? Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 219 - - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: To: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:54 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: FW: Test Pack Importance: High Dr. Carnine, What is the purpose of this? Am I missing something? Is Bonnie trying to eliminate her need to work with this department? We have some software that is licensed to this department. Eddie has been trying to get it loaded on her computer. My guess is that she needs it to work on her dissertation. She has not spoken to me about what her data needs are for her dissertation. Most doctoral candidates come in and visit with us about their data needs. We work with them, but they get data in an aggregate form, not individual students' information. I wish you would please tell me what role you want this department to play. I know the game that is being played. I am about to my wit's end with it. Kathy -Original Message--- From: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Sent Tuesday, February 13, 200112:43 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: FW: Test Pack -Original Message-  om: LESLEY, BONNIE nt; Monday, February 12, 2001 5:31 PM , o: RUFFINS, JOHN Cc: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; McCOY, EDDIE; CLEAVER, VANESSA Subject RE: Test Pack Thanks so much, JOhn. -Original Message- From: RUFFINS, JOHN Sent; Monday, February 12, 2001 4:46 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Test Pack I will come over and personally visit with Virginia and Eddie to access their data and program needs. -- -Original Message--From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent Monday, February 12, 2001 2:40 PM To: RUFFINS, JOHN Subject Test Pack John, I am moving Eddie McCoy and Virginia Johnson out of the rooms designated for PRE and into the room where Vanessa Cleaver is. Both of them will have some program evaluation responsibilities and need to be able to access the SAT9 data, as well as other student data. How do I get those programs loaded onto their machines? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 19 ' LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: To: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:36 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: RE: Another thought Here's one more thought, then I'm burying this frustration. I wouldn't have knowt'i\" about what she is doing at all if Virginia hadn't forwarded me a copy of the message. I'm trapped in junior high!!! Can't somebody save me??? Kathy -Original Message-- From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: Another thought I can support but you do not want to hold the data ... You want free access. Give her all the access she wants or needs ... and then give her more. -Original Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? .She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can yo1:1 s1:1ppo1Tusor are weTon our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 5. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KATHY R. 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc. lrsd .k12.ar. us Sent: To: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:10 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: RE: Another thought I totally agree with that. I want everyone to have access to the data at his or her fingertips. I just continue to be frustrated with the way she refuses to work with me. Kathy -- -Original Message--- From: CARNINE, LESUE V. Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: Another thought \u0026amp; can support but you do not want to hold the data ... You want free access. Give her all the access she wants or needs ...  nd then give her more. --Original Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: Another thought 17 Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 LESLEY, BONNIE 501 -324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.k12.ar.us From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: To: Subject Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:59 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Positions After Don's comment in Cabinet about not hiring people, I visited with him about the positions that I currently have advertised. He suggested that I visit with you about whether or not I can hire the people I need to do the assessment program. I am currently down to three employees. I don't think we can do assessment for 20,000 kids with that number. want to set up interviews this week, but I want your blessing! -- Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. a,-ssistant Superintendent 9'lanning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 LESLEY, BONNIE 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd. k 12 .ar. us From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc. lrsd. kl 2.ar. us 18 From: To: Date: Dr. Faucette i'r/-}- Mrs. Hargis 17 November 2000 ....'  Subject: Exclusion of regular English students from Jennie Calder lecture I write to request a bit of information concerning the recent visit of Jennie Calder, a Robert Louis Stevenson scholar from Scotland, to Central as a part of the conference celebrating this great writer. It was my understanding, after our conversations last spring, that the event was in recognition of the universal appeal of a revered writer. Known and loved the world over, Stevenson is one of a -select group whose works attract readers from widely varying backgrounds, uniting people of all classes and condition in the appreciation of a gifted artist. I was excited about the opportunity Central students-including my own studentswould have to be--exposed to a world of exciting and enthusiastic research that would be especially significant for seniors. (Traditionally, the last year of high school English is dedicated to the exploration of the rich legacy of British literature.) I was disappointed  beyond belief to learn that none-not one--of my regular Engli~h students would be allowed to oenefit from tlie singular experience of having the chance to see and hear the visiting scholar. Only AP and pre-AP students were allowed to attend the Piesentation. In fact, most teachers of regular English classes only learned of the event when students began to ask why they were not allowed to attend the assembly that students in other classes were discussing at lunch. Limiting the experience to students in AP and pre-AP English classes meant that very few black students were allowed to attend. I am shocked and outraged that yet another singular educational opportunity has been reserved for the children of privilege. Because many of the privileged AP English students took advantage of the event to slip out of the building and skip the assembly, and because you wanted to supplement their numbers, you solicited the attendance of students from AP. science and history classes,   still denying access to students from regular English classes. If you really wanted to  impress Ms. Calder, having the Creative Writing Club presented would have done just  that. The knowledge that, at 287 members, the Creative Writing Club is the most active club at Central would impress any true scholar or teacher. One can only wonder why you, Mr. Howard, and the third floor English department all miss the significance of the fact that the club that most fully represents the student diversity in our building is a club centered around an academic endeavor, the study and practice of literature. Yes, this is quite an example you set for our students. Central, lvir. Howard, the English department, and you all had a chance to shine as this scholar brou~bt her enthusiasm to our large and diverse student body. Central, Mr. Howard, the English department, and you dropped the ball disastrously on this one. Rather than seizing the opportunity to be shining beacons by providing this opportunity 7tS I  I I   l ; . ~   .. for learning outside the traditional limitations of the classroom to all of our students, you have shown your true stripe. I thank you for the demonstration once again that, instead of a single unified English department, Central actually bas two:.the second floor contrining primarily regular English classes, and the privileged third-.floor home of AP English. I would now ask an additional bit of information. Please inform me in writing of your reasons for this -l~test instance of educational snobbery so that I might explain more accurately to my classes your dismissal of them as second-class students. - ....._ - -  -  Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: Via Facsimile - 324-2146 December 16, 1998 Would you please ask Nir. James Washington, the District's ombudperson, to look into the complaint of Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming regarding their concerns at Carver Magnet. You are probably not aware that this office has had.several complaints from other parents regarding the unfair treatment of black students at Carver. You should have received a letter from the Flemingsoutlining their concerns along with a response from Ms. Barksdale. Copies ofboth are enclosed for your convenience. . The Flemings believe that Ms. Barksdale is trying to excuse the reason for Ms. Ransom's exclusion of their son from participation by stating that he had behavior problems. In today's society, persons who discriminate usually attempt to establish legitimate reasons for their discriminatory actions. The reason given by Ms. Ransom, we believe, is pretextual. In other words, the reason that she has given is not legitimate. The Flemings were not previously advised that their son had behavior problems regarding his participation in Odyssey of the Mind. Moreover, they are not aware that their son has a behavior problem. Ms. Barksdale's commitment to establish an OM Guideline booklet is a step, I believe, in the right direction. However, I do not believe that she should wait until next year. That process should start immediately. Opportunity for discrimination evolves when there are no written guidelines or rules for participation in a particular activity. The person overseeing or administering the activity usually has the discretion to make rules as they go along. These rules usually favor their own personal interests. Moreover, these rules or guidelines usually change daily to fit a particular interest or situation. I am not sure why the Flemings chose not assist in the coaching of Odyssey's students as indicated by Ms. Barksdale; however, many of our children's parents are unable to participate in many of the schools activities because often they occur-when they are obliged to work and other commitments to meet the overall needs of their families. Page 2 - Letter to Dr. Carnine December 17, 1998 167 I have indicated to Mr. \u0026amp; rvirs. Fleming that I woulq be happy to sit down with 1vir. Washington, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Barksdale, and any other persons tl,1-?-t they believe can help bring this matter to an amicable resolution. In fact, Mr. Washington may assume the role as the parent advocate, if the Flemings agree. I would, however, like to receive a report of his findings and resolution. Thank you for your attention to this request. JCS/ Enclosures cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming Ms. Diane Barksdale Ms. Sadie Mitchell Mr. James Washington Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors Via Facsimile - 324-2146 February 18, 1999 Ms. Sadie Iv.litchell Associate Superintendent for Student Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Ms. Mitchell: This office has received several calls regarding the selection process for the new football coach at J. A Fair High School. It is our information that the selection process has been changed to favor the selection of a particular coach for the position. In oraer to address tfie concerns that have been raised, would you please provide to me a copy of process being utilized by District officials for the selection of coaching positions including the selection criteria. If this information has changed from prior years, also please provide the process and criteria that was utilized in previous years. I have spoken with Mr. Gillespie regarding this matter and he has assured me that the only change in the process was that the selection committee did not meet on the school campus as it has done in previous years. I was, however, a bit concerned about the gender makeup of the selection committee for the Fair position. I voiced my concern to Mr. Gillespie that the committee was all males. I am available to discuss this matter with you and Mr. Gillespie at a mutually convenient time. Thank you for your attention to this request. JCS/ cc: Ivir. Ray Gillespie Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors Rudolph Howard . Principal, Central High School 1400 Park Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Howard: Via Facsimile - 324-2308 March 17, 1999 lb't I am writing on behalf of Rev. \u0026amp; Ms. Bennie Horton and their son, Tariclc, to request a conference regarding his grades. As I review the revised desegregation plan, I can point to a number of areas including equal treatment, participation in honors and gifted classes, academic achievement, parental involvement etc. that are involved in these parents' concern. By copy ofUiis letter to the District's Ombudsperson, :tvir. James L. Washington, I am also putting him on notice of this concern and invite him to participate in the conference. I have spoken with Ms. Horton and she is available during her lunch hour to discuss this matter. Please let me hear from you. JCS/ cc: Rev. \u0026amp; Mrs. Bennie Horton Mr. James L. Washington Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON 2\\-1ARK BUR1'rETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Mr. James Washington Little Rock School District Office of Ombudsman 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY L!ITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 'TELEPHONE(501) 374-3758 FA,'{ (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2213 October 14, 1999 KP./,puv1se AJ0. S 77{ /1)0, !1 I am writing to request that you look into the selection process for students participating on mock trial teams:at Central High School. We request that you obtain some background information regarding past composition by grade, race and gender and the current composition by grade, race and gender. This office has received a complaint that these teams are generally one race and favor . white students because their parents or other relatives are business professionals such as lawyers, judges, etc. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We further request a report of your findings with respect to this inquiry. By copy of this letter to Mr. Howard, :tv!r. Babbs and Dr. Carnine, I am also advising them of these allegations. JCS/ cc: Mr. Ruduloph Howard Mr. Junious Babbs Dr. Leslie Carnine a:rely,;'l - / ' cl::vKfl,/ / Joy C. Springer U .c::::1 On Behalf of Joshua 1vir. James Washington Ombudsperson Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 7220 I Dear Mr. Washington: Via Facsimile February 28, 2000 I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of discrimination and retaliatory treatment by Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Eddy Harris Sr. against his son, Eddy Jr. by members of the staff at Oak Grove High School in the Pulaski County Special School District. For several years, Eddy Jr.w as a M to M student in tfie County. Eddy is currently a student in the Little Rock School District. I have previously requested that Mr. Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, look into complaints of the Harrises. I am enclosing a CGpy of my request to .l\\!Ir. Bowles. Mr. Bowles assured me that he would conduct a thorough investigation and, thereafter, provide a report of his findings. I am enclosing a copy ofivir. Bowles' purported report of his findings. It is basically a one sentence conclusion. At least, I expected a report which enumerated all charges and a summary of his findings. I expected a more thorough report similar to the one that he and members of his staff conducted several years ago at Robinson High School where he noted findings, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated. The Harrises claim Eddy Harris Jr. was not allowed to participate on the football team for the last four or five games for.racial and/or retaliatory reasons, that Eddy Jr. was not selected to participate on the basket ball team for racial and/or retaliatory reasons and that Eddy Jr. re_ceived retaliatory treatment from his classroom teachers, in particular, Ms. Morrison, his English teacher. who gave him gave him an \"F\". The Harrises claim that Eddy's English grade for the semester is based, in part, upon assignments that he should not have been charged for because they had officially withdrew him from Pulaski County School District. Enclosed is the documentation from the Harrises. Also enclosed are copies of letters directed to or copied to Mr. Bowles regarding the claims of the Harrises. I also have several tape recordings of conferences with staff members that I will be happy to share with you. i\\lir. Bowles-was aware of these taped conferell(:es, but he-did not request a copy of either of them for his review. Mr. Bowles did not make single finding regarding his investigation nor did he address any of the points in this correspondence. In summary, the complaints of the Harrises are as follow: 1) failure of Eddy Jr. to participate in the remaining four or five games of the football season; 2) failure to Eddy Jr. to participate on the basketball team; and 3) the failing grade received by Eddy Jr. in English. 77/ The treatment referenced above, we believe is due to racial and/or retaliatory treatment by Pulaski County School District officials. Please let me know if additional information or clarification is needed regarding this matter. Again, I am copying Mr. Junious Babbs to alert him of this egregious situation and to request that he also utilize his offices to assist in the amicable resolution of this matter. I would also appreciate a report of your findings. Thank you for your attention to this request. JCSt cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Eddy Harris Sr. Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann Brown  Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors :Mr. James Washington Ombudsperson Little Rock School District 810 West Mark.ham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: February 28, 2000 I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of Mr. Reginald Abrams. I am taking the time to put this request in writing due to the egregious nature of the situation. Mr. Abrams' \"son is a Boys Scout at Cloverdale Middle School. Mr. Abrams complained to me regarding the treatment his son and other black Scouts received while attending the Boys Scout Council Area Banquet on last Thursday evening, February 24, 2000 at Ricks Armory. I have-asked Mr. Abrams to call you with the specific details of this experience. I must state, however, that based upon his communication to me, I do not believe that the Little Rock School District's commitment to inclusiveness and desegregation was demonstrated at this banquet. Upon information and belief, it appears that the black scouts roles at this activity were both demeaning and nonexistent. I must also question the expectations oflv!r. Lacour, the Scout Master, who tolerated this treatment and was reported to have said that he did not expect black parents to participate and thus be able to question the roles and participation of their children during particular scouting activities. Mr. Lacour needs to understand that the spirit of desegregation plan called for activities such as scouting and that \"scouting\" would be an opportunity for black students to have new experiences and be given opportunities to develop skills such as social and leadership skills, to new a few. May I suggest that you conduct an investigation into the scouting programs for the entire District and determine the roles of black students and whether similar situations have occurred. I believe that you should interview Mr. Lacour to determine the schools that he has been working with and the names of other scout masters in the area who work with Little Rock District students. I understand that Mr. Lacour's number is 758-1838 or pager 688-4533 . Mr. Abrams may be reached at 9700 Stardust Trail, Little Rock, AR 72209, telephone number 562-0348. Please let me hear from you regarding the result of your findings and your recommendations to ensure that similar situations do not occur in the future. Thank you for your attention to this request. I believe that it is important that ~fr. Junious Babbs receives a copy of this letter given his role to ensure compliance with desegregation. JCS/ cc: :tvir. Reginald Abrams l\\lir. Junious Babbs Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Ray Gillespie Athletic Director Little Rock School District 8 l O West Markham Little Rock, AR 7220 l JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile August 28; 2000 ...... Re: Southwest l\\:liddle School Dear Mr. Gillespie: 773 17l I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Michael Wesley regarding their son, Marquis, a student at Southwest Middle School. Mr. Wesley reports a very disturbing incident that occurred on Friday, August 24, 2000 at the school involving Coach Foote. In summary, Mr. Wesley reports that Coach Foote choked Marquis and has openly admitted doing so. The Wesleys are very upset about Coach Foote actions and request that \"he be dealt with\". We are available to meet with you, if additional information is needed. ncere~y '( h':-I ' Joy . Springe ,, On Behalf of Joshua lntervenors JCS/ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile September 12, 2000 I am .vriting on behalf of Marcus Winston, a 9rh grade student at Parkview High School and similarly situated students in the Little .Rock District. Would you please direct my attention to the sec ti off ofthe District' s- student handbook which states that 9th grade students cannot participate in varsity team athletics. It is my understanding that the practice of the District in previous years has been to allow these students to participate on varsity teams. By copy of this letter to Mr. James Washington, I am also requesting that he investigate this matter. I recommend that he identify all 9th grade students at the senior high level to determine the number, race and gender of the students who are being adversely affected by unwritten directive. As I review t~e District's desegregation plan, I note in Section 2.6 of that plan that the District \"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 .... \" It appears that the District's refusal to allow 9rh grade students to participate in athletics at the varsity level is contrary to plan commitments. This new practice is neither promoting nor ensuring participation. Prior to invoking the process regarding compliance issues, I ask that Mr. Washington provide to this office a report of his preliminary findings. by September 20, 2000. Thank you for your attention to this matter. nin~ero/J~. ,_, . ~- \"44 \u0026lt;J= ; 9t~ ~ / Joy C. Sprin~er ~ ( On Behalf of Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. James Washington, Ombudsman Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Mr. Ray Gillespie, Althletic Director Ms. Ann Brown ?Jf JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETIE SHAWN CHILDS Dr. Leslie V. Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 8 IO West Markham Little Rock, AR  7220 I JOHN W,,,WALKER, P.A . . _,,. ATI6RNEY AT Ll.w 1723 BROADWAY L!TILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2146 October 10, 2000 Re: Duties of Ombudsman Dear Dr. Carnine: Yollf letter of October 5, 2000, in responseto my letter of October 3, 2000, was received by this office today. I look forward to receiving the other requested information. . With respect to the second instance, may I call your attention to a letter dated July 25, 2000 addressed to you from a Parkview parent, Bill Winston? A copy is attached for your convenience. According to Mr. Winston, you did not respond to his inquiry. On September 12, 2000, I spoke briefly with Mr. Gillespie about Mr. Winton's concerns. :tvfr. Gillespie reported to Mr. Winston and me that there existed documentation which communicated to all parents the District's position regarding 9th grade participation on varsity teams for the 2000-2001 school year. This information was requested for the parent through the Ombudsman. To date, this information has not been received. This complaint was subsequently assigned to Dr. Marion Lacey for handling. Dr. Lacey, Mr. Gillespie and I met on September 29, 2000 regarding Mr. Winston's concerns. I was assured by Dr. Lacey that she would provide a written response along with the previously requested information by the Ombudsman and myself By copy of this letter to Dr. Lacey, I hope that this will serve as a reminder that I wouid still like to have her letter and the requested information.  By copy ofthis letter to Mr. Washington, I hope that this also refreshes his memory regarding the requested information that was not shared with him or a parent after inquiry and request for it. Surely, these records do not fall in the category of confidentiality. Moreover, the District has had approximately thirty (30) days to provide the information. Thank you again for your response and consideration giveri to this inquiry. JCS! Enclosure  cc: Mr. Junious Babbs Mr. James w ashington Dr. Marion Lacey Mr. Ray Gillespie Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Gus Taylor 715 Sinferelv, 4~- (/,(L(( (:!, ' !zt:t~ My C. S prmger  . (J On Behalf of Joshua ..... SEP , 13 ! 00 . 7:48 FR NATIONWIDE July 25, 2000 Superintendent Les Carnine 810 W. Markham Little Rock. AR 72202 Superintendent Carnine, 501 223 1749 TO 93744187 Please be advised that I am attempting to contact you by letter, having been unsuccessful so far in getting you to call me back. ! have left several messages with your secretary requesting to speak to you concerning my oldest son, Demarcus Winston, a freshman .scheduled to attend Little Rock Parkview Arts and _Science Magnet High School this year. My lasr attempt to reach you was July 14, 2000 and I was told by your secretary that you were out of town and she would have you call me on Monday, July 24, 2000 upon your return. In any event, my concern involves the situation or status of 9th grade athletes being able to participate on the varsity level. I have spoken with the head football coach, Ernest Mcgee, and the head basketball coach, Al Flanagan, about this issue and they advised they were unclear-on-whether 9th graders could\"play with the varsity, but both were hoping they could. They encouraged me to voice my concerns to you hopefully before any decision is made . . I personally feel that my son would be penalized and held back in his development as an athlete if he were not allowed to play on the varsii:y level. The 9th graders who were good enough to play at the varsity level were allowed to do so last year and I have no idea and, as a concerned parent, have not been given an explanation of why my son would not be allowed to play this year. There is not an organized 9th grade league of competition as there is in the Pulaski County school district. Since the new format now moves 9th graders to Senior High (9-12), then he should be allowed to play. The coaches want him to play, his parents wanr him to play, but I am told that he may not be allowed to play. I would hope that you would consider that my son who is 6-6, 2001bs gets penalized ifhe is not allowed to play with the varsity and compete at the highest levd of competition. I am oguin asking you to discuss this issue with me and listen to my concerns. Sincerely, Mr. Bill Winston 775 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Mr. James Washington Ombudsman Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 7220 l Re: 9th grade Athletics Dear Mr. Washington: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE Rocx, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2260 September 13, 2000 776 For y0ur information, I am attaching a copy of a letter- that was sent to Dr. Carnine by one of the concerned parents. It is my understanding that Dr. Carnine has not responded to the letter nor has he returned the parent's numerous teiephone calls. Also attached hereto is a list of other parents whose children stand to be adversely affected by the District unwritten rule regarding 9th grade athletics. Hopefully this information will assist you with your investigation. In speaking briefly with Mr. Gillespie on yesterday, he indicated that the District sent notices to parents regarding this matter. Would you also inquire about the notices that were sent to parents and share copies of same with this office. Finally, would you also check to see whether this issue was submitte~ to the Board for approval. .. I look forward to your preliminary report by September 20, 2000. Thank you for your cooperation. JCS/ (r:lyar ~(pnrig~~ On Behalf of Joshua SEP 13'00 7:48 FR NATIONWIDE 501 223 1749 TO 93744187 P . 02/03 776 July 25, 2000 Superin1endent Les Carnine 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 Superintendent Carnine, Please be advised th.a! I am attempting to contact you by letter, having been unsuccessful so far in getting you to call me back. l have le.ft several messages with your secretary requesting to speak to you concerning my oldest son, Demarcus Winston, a freshman scheduled to attend Lirtle Rock Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School this year. My last attempt to reach you was July 14, 2000 and l was told by your secretary that you were out of town and she would have you call me on Monday, July 24, 2000 upon your return. In any event, my concern involves the situaiion or status of 9th grade athletes being able to participate on the varsity level. I have spoken with the head football coach, Ernest Mcgee, and the head basketball coach, Al Flanagan, about this issue and they advised they w_ere unclear on whether 9th graders could play with the varsity, but both were hoping they could. They encouraged me to voice my concerns to you hopefully before any decision is made. I personally feel that my son would be penalized and held back in his development as an athlete ifhe were not allowed to play onthe varsity level. The 9th graders who were . good enough to play at the var.;ity level were allowed to do so last year and I have no idea and, as a concerned parent, have not been given an explanation of why my son would not be allowed to play this year. There is not an organized 9th grade league of competition as there is in the Pulaski County school district. Since the new fonnat now moves 9th graders to Senior High (9-12), then he should be allowed to play. The coaches want him to play, his parents want him to play, but I am told that he may not be allowed to play. I would hope that you would consider that my son who is 6-6, 200lbs gets penalized if he is not allowed to play with the varsity and compete at the highest level of competition. I am ago.in asking you to disc~ this issue with me and listen to my concerns. Sincerely, Mr. Bill Winston SEP 13'00 7:49 FR NATIONWIDE 501 223 1749 TO 93744187 Concerned Parents:  Bill and Tammy Winston (Demarcus Winston, Linle Rock Parlcview) Home Phone# (501)224-5138  Glenn and Karen Anderson (Jamaal Anderson. Little Rock Parkview) Home Phone# (501)224-2593  Lynn and Angie Smith (Nicholas Smith, Little Rock Parkview) Home Number Unknown  Brian and Tracey Salley (Trey Salley, Little Rock Parkview) Home Phone# (501)565-0947  William and Jean Givens (CaTravia Givens, Little Rock Central) Home Phone# (501)562-6882  Fred and Dorothy Blerlsoe (Fred Bledsoe, Jr., Little Rock Central) Home Phone# (501)562-566L  Eric Mcghee (Tori Mcghee, Linle Rock Central) Home Nwnber Unknown P.03/03 776 ** TOTAL PAGE.003 ** STEWART, DONALD M. - rom: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:49 AM To: STEWART, DONALD M. Subject: RE: Desegregation Payments to Pulaski Co. Districts Thanks so much for this information. I am understanding it for the first time. -Original Message- Frorn: STEWART, DONALD M. Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 4:17 PM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Cc: GADBERRY, BRADY L.; ANDERSON, VICTOR; MILHOLLEN, MARK; BABBS, JUNIOUS; MITCHELL, SADIE; LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: Desegregation Payments to Pulaski Co. Districts Attached to th is email is an Excel worksheet which calculates the total amount of funds received from the State by the three school districts in Pulaski County as a result of the Desegregation Settlement Agreement and various court orders. These calculations are based on the data from the 1999-2000 school year and do change slightly from year to year. In total payments the three districts in Pulaski County will receive approximately $39.5 M. in the 1999-2000 school year. This total is made up of funds for: Magnet School operation ($10.1), M-to-M transfer payments ($13 M), Magnet and M-to-M transportation ($5.9 M), Teacher Rel. \u0026amp; Health Ins. Reimburse. {$10.3 M), and Worker's Compensation Reimbursement ($.2 M). These payments are divided among the three Pulaski County Districts utilizing various methods and result in annual payments on behalf of district students to: LRSD ($19.86 M), NLRSD ($4.88 M), and PCSSD ($14.76 M). M-to-M Funding: Currently M-to-M transfer students are removed from the district enrollment prior to regular State Equalization Aid . computations. If these students were not being funded through the separate M-to-M funding mechanism they would be eligible for regular State Aid and would create approximately $8.5 M per year. LRSD is currently sending a larger number (1100) of M-to-M students than it receives (422) and also, through the pooling agreement, must pay to the PCSSD ($.4 M) for the education of M-to-M students. Because of these provisions, doing away with the M-to-M provision would actually result in an increase in aid to the LRSD of approximately ($1.2 M), while NLRSD wculd lose ($1 .3 M) and PCSSD would lose ($4.1 M). If all M-to-M transfers were returned to their home district, LRSO would be responsible for educating approximately 675 more students than it currently does. At the current rate of expense per student that would cost the district in excess of $4 M. Magnet Funding: Magnet funding is limited to students in the original stipulated magnet school, all located in LRSD. These students are included in the home district's enrollment count for equalization aid purposes. In addition to this funding source, the State is req uired to fund one half the cost of educating these students. This amount is calculated from MRC approved budget submissions and is paid directly to the LRSD on behalf of all students enrolled in those schools. The approved amount for the 1999-2000 school year is approximately ($10.1 M). The amount paid on behalf of each district's students is: 100 LRSD ($6.3 M), LRSD ($1.29 M), and PCSSD ($2.47 M). Magnet \u0026amp; M-to-M Transportation: ?77 The three districts in Pulaski County are currently paid one hundred percent of the costs of providing transportation for all Magnet and M-to-M students, including some expenses for getting these students to after school activities and events. The estimated costs for 1999-2000 is: LRSD ($3.41 M), NLRSD ($.57 M), and PCSSD ($1.94 M). If this funding sourc.e were eliminated there would be no resulting increase in Transportation Aid to the districts from regular State sources. The basic assumption would likely be that all of these cost would also end. Teacher Retirement \u0026amp; Health Insurance: During 1999-2000 the school districts in Pulaski County are projected to receive approximately ($10.28 M) to offset teacher retirement and health insurance costs. This number is somewhat stable but is effected by a number of factors and could change significantly from year to year. Under the present payment calculation any increase in the required contribution rate, (currently $114. per employee, per month and set by the State Board of Education) would result in a corresponding increase in funding to the Pulaski County Districts. The funding breakout by district is currently: LRSD ($6.17 M), NLRSD ($1 .02 M), and - PCSSD ($3.08 M). The cessa tion of these payments would result in a negative bottom line of the amounts received . No offsetting funds would exist and no method for significantly decreasing cost is available. Worker's Compensation: During 1999-2000 the school districts in Pulaski County will receive ($.19 M) to offset costs for providing Worker's Compensation coverage to district employees. These payment amounts by district are currently: LRSD ($.06 M). NLRSD ($.04 M), and PCSSD ($.09 M). Summary: If all special funding for desegregation programs and services were discontinued the ($39.5 M) estimated aid to the three Pulaski County School Districts from desegregation related funding sources would be offset by M-to-M students again being counted for regular State Equalization Aid. When that calculation is made the total aid loss would be app~oximately ($31 M) and by district would be: LRSD ($15.13M ). NLRSD ($4.21 M), and . PCSSD ($11 .66 M). The actual total aid loss to the LRSD budget would be increased by the amount paid directly to the District on behalf of students from the other districts attending Stipulated Magnet Schools. The additional amount would be approximately $3. 76 M but there would also be a decrease in the district's costs since the magnet students attending LRSD schools would by necessity either be reassigned to their home district or some other funding mechanism would need to be put in place. The total aid package is obviously a significant amount of funds and the abrupt loss of these funding sources would necessitate drastic changes in the way all the districts operate. A transition of several years may be necessary in order for the districts to work through the various changes that would be required. 101 STEWART, DONALD M. - om: Sent: To: Subject: BABBS, JUNIOUS Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:19 AM STEWART, DONALD M. FW: LRSD Biracial Committee Request 77! Thanks for agreeing to give him a call. You will find his number listed in an earlier mailing attached. Will stay in touch. Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message- From: EGGLESTON, DEANA Sent: Wednesday. April 18, 2001 1:51 PM To: BABBS. JUNIOUS Subject: FW: LRSD Biracial Committee Request FYI -Original Message- From: STEWART, DONALD M. Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:01 PM To: EGGLESTON, DEANA Subject: RE: LRSD Biracial Committee Request The reason we do not have an estimated completion date on Romine is that we have just started the preliminary design work on that project and until we know exactly what we are going to do we can't guess when it will be complete. I don't know who needs to talk to this person but if Junious want it to be me, let me know. - -----Original Message---- F rorn: EGGLESTON, DEANA Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:06 AM To: STEWART, DONALD M.; GADBERRY, BRADY L. Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: LRSD Biracial Committee Request We held the April meeting of the LRSD Biracial Committee last night. Delaney Fleming (Joshua's representative) was questioning why the Romine project had no start/ est. completion date on the handout that Don provided. FYI - Delaney has questioned the district's committment to Romine and the \"poor conditions\" of the Romine bldg. many times. Mr. Babbs said that he would check into the projected start dates and have one of you telephone Mr. Fleming. His # is 224-0630. Mr. Fleming's address is 9505 Cerelle, Little Rock, AR 72205 (in Romine's zone). Babbs is out today, however, he wanted me to pass this info along to you. Deana Deana M. Eggleston Student Registration Office (501) 324-2408 dmeggle@stuasn.lrsd.k12.ar.us 37 '/ 1/7 STEWART, Db_NALDM.: \" __ . --___ .''i:\u0026gt;- __ ... . . :c;;. \u0026gt;.:: From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:32 PM To: MILHOLLEN, MARK Cc: STEWART, DONALD M. Subject: Leave Accountability Report Importance: High Mark, I just received the June to March Leave Accountability Report. The names of all those people that we discussed earlier are still on the report. One of my concerns is that they do not have access to their leave information because it was all sent to my department. Another concern is that, again, it looks like there are more people in PRE that there really are. Interestingly enough, Regina Moore got changed to PRE since she is now Karen Broadnax' secretary. The following list of folks do not work in PRE: Mona Briggs, Karen Broadnax, Virg inia Johnson, Shirley Lewis Eddie McCoy, Regina Moore, Rosalyn Summerville. The people who do work for me are the following: Eula Yvette Dillingham, Irma Truett, Charlotte Marks, Malinda Allen , Paulette Denson, and Ed Williams. Thanks for your help in straightening this out. It concerns me that the PRE staff list has not been accurate the whole time I've been here. I'm afraid that it presents a distorted picture of staffing for this department. If there is anything that you need me to do, please let me know. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd .k12.ar.us Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 1:01 PM To: WELCH, JANE Cc: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Plato Communication grade I did not know that Central was offering a PLATO Communications course. I am going to research my email from last year. Seemingly there was a question about it then either at Central or Hall. -Original Message- From: WELCH, JANE Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 12:15 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: GREEN,CAROL Subject: Plato Communication grade I have been given a grade in the Plato Lab for Larts-/communication. We do not have a number assigned for communication. How do I key this grade without an identifying number? Jane Welch, Registrar-Central High school LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, May 25, 2001 4:14 PM BERRY, DEBORAH; BLAYLOCK, ANN; FULLERTON, JAMES; HUDSON, ELOUISE; Larry Buck; MARIAN LACEY; MOSBY, JIMMY; PATTERSON, DAVID; ROUSSEAU, NANCY; SAIN, LLOYD DAVIS, SUZI; AUSTIN, LINDA Middle School Evaluation I understand that you all got \"assigned\" the middle school program evaluation yesterday. Probably most of the stuff you  eed is in the Compliance Report or the Interim Report. I am attaching both for your information. They are long, so you ay want to look at what you need before you print them. I am not at all sure that you need to spend much time on that assignment. Let me check with the superintendent before you do a lot. I know you have many other things on your plate right now. ~ 1 A Final Compliance Report-001 ... Compliance Report, Feb. 2000.d ... Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) 358 STEWART,\" DONALD M. From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11 :31 AM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V.; ANDERSON, VICTOR; BABBS, JUNIOUS; MITCHELL, SADIE; STEWART, DONALD M.; GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: FW: AP fyi --Original Message- From: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net1 Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11 :13 AM To: BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US Subject: AP I have received and reviewed you memo on AP enrollment. It looks great! As you know, there will be concern that we are simply lowering the standards so more kids can get into the courses. To counter this perception, it would be nice to show an increased number and/or percentage of students passing the AP exam. For this reason, I would support either requiring them to take the exam or offering some incentive for doing so. I think it's as i    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\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1740","title":"District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and supplementary materials from plaintiff and 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":["2002-07"],"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","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","School administrators","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and supplementary materials from plaintiff and 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/1740"],"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":["88 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, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion in Limine; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' witness list; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental witness list; District Court, transcript and order; District Court, plaintiff's revised witness list for the July 22, 2002, hearing; District Court, letter-order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's witness list for the July 22 hearing as revised July 23, 2002; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to strike; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to strike; 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.    AO 72A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL -8 2002 OFF!CF. OF EGREGATIOH MONITORING u.sfo,{b~cRRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO\"fltffERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL Q 1 2002 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. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. For the time being, Plaintiff's request for a protective Order against Joshua, or anyone acting on their behalf, is GRANTED. The deadline for exchanging exhibits and witnesses was set on May 15, 2002, for June 21 , 2002. At the request of lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, the deadline was orally extended until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 24, 2002. It appears, from the documents attached to Plaintiffs Motion, that Joshua's FOI request was submitted on June 26, two days after the deadline for exchanging exhibits and the names of witnesses. Even assuming the FOI can be used in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by a party to litigation, it appears quite certain that this request was not timely. It is my impression, from a quick review of the law, that the great weight of authority precludes a party from using the FOi as a supplement to the discovery rules of the Federal Rules 6 1 1 A072A {Rev.8/82) of Civil Procedure; but, be that as it may, this particular request appears to be manifestly out of time. I note in passing that many, if not most, of the documents requested in the FOI request are not pertinent to the three remaining issues in this case. Accordingly, the LRSD is relieved of any duty to respond to the FOI request by Joshua. If Joshua wants a hearing on this issue, it should file a response to Plaintiff's Motion forthwith, and request a hearing--if such a request is made, a hearing will be set as soon as practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. DA TED this I 9-:f day of July, 2002. UNITED sT ATESDISTc JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 1/V!Tb:(oE 58 AND/OR~7~ F9R CP r,;, , ~ ..,___ GY _ - - '\" _ f_t:___ I -2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RELEVANCE GENERALLY RECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402 and 403 . The ultimate issue before this Court is whether noncompliance with the Revised Plan casts doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). Noncompliance that the Board knew nothing about has no bearing on this issue and is irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Section 1983 Liability Standard The issue before this Court is analogous to the issue of whether a governmental entity may be held liable under 42 U.S.C.  1983 for the unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Respondeat superior is not a permissible theory for holding a governmental entity liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Instead, a governmental entity is liable under 1983 when \"a policy, statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated - by that body's officers\" can be causally related to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Id. Liability may also be based on \"constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision-making channels.\" Id. at 690- 91, 98 S.Ct. 2018. See Ryan v. Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, 96 F.3d 1076, 1084 (8th Cir.1996). In Ware v. Jackson County, 150 F.3d 873 (8th Cir.1998), the Eighth Circuit explained that: Official policy involves 'a deliberate choice to follow a course of action * * * made from among various alternatives' by an official who [is determined by state law to have] the final authority to establish governmental policy.\" Jane Doe A, 901 F.2d at 645. Alternatively, \"custom or usage\" is demonstrated by: (1) The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees; (2) Deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity's policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and (3) Th[ e] plaintiff['s] injur[y] by acts pursuant to the governmental entity's custom, i.e., (proof] that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Ware, 150 F.3d at 880 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). \"(I]naction or laxness can constitute government custom if it is permanent and well settled.\" Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dept., 28 F.3d 802, 807 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). - \"Such a government custom of laxness or inaction must be the moving force behind the constitutional violation.\" Id. \"To establish a city's liability based on its failure to prevent misconduct by employees, the plaintiff must show that city officials bad knowledge of prior incidents of police misconduct and deliberately failed to take remedial action.\" Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1075 (8th Cir.1996) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, the Board is the \"final authority\" in making District policy. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Board adopted and/or re-adopted clear, unambiguous policies indicating its intent to comply with the Revised Plan, federal civil rights statutes and the Constitution. See CX 719. Thus, to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future, Joshua must establish a \"custom or practice\" of failing to remedy noncompliance with the Revised Plan. This requires that Joshua show \"that [the Board] had knowledge of prior incidents of [noncompliance] and deliberately failed to take remedial 2 action.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1075. Accordingly, incidents of noncompliance of which the Board did not have knowledge are irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Joshua may argue that the District failed to adequately train or supervise its employees who were violating the Revised Plan. It is true that a governmental body may also be held accountable under certain circumstances based on a failure to adequately train and supervise employees. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S . 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). In Andrews, the Eighth Circuit summarized these circumstances related to a city police force. The court stated: A city also may be liable for deficient policies regarding hiring and training police officers where (1) the city's hiring and training practices are inadequate; (2) the city was deliberately indifferent to the rights of others in adopting them, such that the failure to train reflects a deliberate or conscious choice by a municipality; and (3) an alleged deficiency in the city's hiring or training procedures actually caused the plaintiffs injury. It is necessary to show \"that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.\" In other words, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the city \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of constitutional rights.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1076 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, Joshua must establish that the Board \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of [the Revised Plan.].\" Id. It is simple common sense that the Board cannot be on \"notice that its procedures were inadequate\" if the Board was unaware of the noncompliance resulting from the alleged procedural inadequacy. Therefore, Joshua must at a minimum show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance with the Revised Plan in order to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. The Revised Plan Requiring Joshua to show, at a minimum, that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance about which they complain is consistent with the Revised Plan. As a part of the 3 Revised Plan, Joshua and the LRSD agreed to a process for raising and resolving compliance issues. Revised Plan  8 outlined a three step process for resolving compliance issues. First, the issue would be brought to the attention of the District. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the issue would be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Finally, the issue would be presented to the Court for resolution. During the term of the Revised Plan, all compliance issues raised by Joshua were resolved without the need for facilitation by ODM or resolution by the Court. See Final Report, p. 166. Consistent with Revised Plan  8, the Board expected Joshua to bring to its attention any substantial compliance issues. To facilitate Joshua's monitoring of the District's compliance, the Board agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 to Plaintiffs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Therefore, Joshua cannot be heard to complain that requiring it to show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance is inconsistent with the Revised Plan. Conclusion The parties knew there would be compliance issues, and for that reason, agreed to Revised Plan 8. Thus, real question before this Court is not whether there was noncompliance, but how the Board responded to noncompliance. The Board had no opportunity to respond to noncompliance of which it was unaware. Thus, noncompliance that was not brought to the Board's attention is irrelevant and should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403 . 4 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT 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 - 011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by mail on July 2, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (via hand-delivery) 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 5 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 A072A (Rev.8/82) I O!INO~ NOl!VU3YD3S3Q d030WO zooz s- 1nr u.fo!k~QAr ... , :\\ ;~l'\\~U ::JJi \\i :.il .J :I g EASn fiN Ol6i/ii1CT MH\u0026lt;AN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL O 2 z SA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 1, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3611) granting LRSD's request for a protective order to the extent that LRSD was relieved of its duty to respond to Joshua's FOI requests, which appeared to be untimely under the May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order (docket no. 3600). However, I permitted Joshua's counsel the opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing and to request a hearing ifhe deemed it necessary. This morning, I received Joshua's counsel's July 1, 2002 letter, a copy of which is attached to this Order. In that letter, Joshua's counsel requests me to rescind my July 1 Order, allow him an opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion, and \"then allow either party to request a hearing.\" This Order responds to the various points raised by Joshua's counsel in his July 1 letter. First, my July 1 Order admittedly was entered in \"haste\" because LRSD's motion papers declared an \"emergency\" and made it clear that July 1, 2002, was the deadline for it to produce A072A {Rev.8/82) documents pursuant to Joshua's FOI requests. Furthermore, in LRSD's Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order and Emergency Hearing, its counsel pointed out that Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-104 provides a \"potential criminal penalty (of thirty days in jail) which could flow from the LRSD's failure to respond within three days [to Joshua's FOI requests] .\" This time of year, jails in Arkansas are particularly uncomfortable. Therefore, I hastened to enter my Order before 5 :00 p.m. on July 1, lest I place someone in jeopardy of being hauled off in chains. I want to assure counsel for Joshua that, in entering that Order, I was not \"vexed\" with counsel--somewhat or otherwise. I appreciate counsel for Joshua clarifying that the FOi requests were filed in connection with his ongoing monitoring ofLRSD under the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"). This important point apparently was not communicated to LRSD, which understandably construed the FOI requests as seeking documents that Joshua intended to use in connection with the upcoming evidentiary hearing which commences on July 22, 2002. J.n LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1386 (8th Cir. 1990), Judge Arnold made it clear that, in approving the 1989 global settlement of this case, the Court placed \"a great deal of weight\" on the fact that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring,\" which the Court found to be \"essential.\" Likewise, Exhibit B to the Revised Plan makes it clear that Joshua's counsel will continue his monitoring of the LRSD's implementation of its desegregation obligations. By clarifying that Joshua is seeking the documents described in its FOI requests in connection with its continuing monitoring duties, and not for use in the July 22 hearing, I believe counsel should be able to work out a satisfactory schedule for the production of the requested documents. As an aside, I believe that counsel for both sides have more than enough to do in preparing for the -2- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) upcoming five days of evidentiary hearings beginning on July 22, and should not to have to concern themselves with the collection and production of a large volume of documents related to Joshua 's ongoing monitoring function. It appears to me the production of those documents can and should be delayed until after the completion of the evidentiary hearings that begin in less than three weeks. In conclusion, my July 1 Order will remain in effect until after the evidentiary hearing unless counsel for Joshua can convince me that there is a need for the production of the documents described in the FOI requests before the July 22 hearing. Counsel for Joshua is allowed until and including July 8, 2002, to file a response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. LRSD can submit a short reply by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 11 , 2002. Thereafter, if either party requests a hearing on that Motion, the Court will likely conduct one. IT IS SO ORDE~,- DATED this 1 ~ day of July, 2002. W~R-~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT mDGE -3- JUL . 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOH.,.~ W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Honorable Judge William R Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock. AR 72201 ATToRNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY L1TrLE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsinule - 604-5149 July 1, 2002 Re: Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wtlson: NO .521 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 liEND81!SOl'I RoAD Ltmz Rocr, ~ 72210 l'HON\u0026amp;: (501) 372-3425  J\u0026lt;'AX (501) 372-3428 r.!MA!r..: mchonry,i@awbGll.not - I received your order dated July 1, 2002 after 5:30 p.m. when I returned to the office from a trial before the Honorable George Howard, Jr., USA v. Dennis Wtlliams and Joe Bryant I am surprised that the Court ruled on the matter before I had an opportunity to reply to it. I note, however, that the Court provides that opportunity to reply post hoc by the filing of a motion and requesting a hearing. The apparent premise of the Order is that the requested FOIA documents are intended for use at the trial on July 22, 2002. Moreover, the Court seems so_mewhat vexed ~el. I believe the Court would not be ~ were I to have had a reasonable time in which to respond and to make the follo'Wing explanation. Joshua has been monitoring the District's record of compliance since the entry of the original Decree. In that role, we constantly receive concerns from class members about race related matters in each of the three Districts. We first seek to get the District's infonnation by letter. When that fails, we make a request under FOIA. The District usually responds to our letter requests unless a hearing like the one set for July 22 is approaching. Our monitoring was contemplated by the 8th Circuit and the Settlement Agreements herein. The Court has not been involved with respect to our monitoring unless the District claimed some prejudice in its trial preparation. BetWeen 1998 and June 2001, there was not a single hearing before the Court on any matter involving LRSD that was initiated by Joshua Furthermore, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua have obtained information from the District in the same manner for years. The Court has reacted in haste to a matter which is not, and will not be before it. The reaction is seen in the Court's conclusion that the requested information \"appears quite certainn to JUL. 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.521 P.3/3 be \"not timely\". The Court seems persuaded that we did not meet the deadline for exchanging exlnoits and names of witnesses. We each did so. Mr. Heller's office delivered bis exhibits to us at the close of business on June 24, 2002 and we returned our witness list and exhibits to Mr. Heller by his own courier. We agree with the Court's comments that the requests are pot pertinent to the three rernainine issues in this case as the case relates to the District's compliance as of March 15, 2001. That does not mean, however, that Joshua's monitoring ended upon the filing of the report by the District on March 15, 2001. For the foregoing reasons, I request the Court to simply rescind its Order, afford us a reasonable reply time and then allow either party an opportunity to request a hearing thereon.. In that way, the burden of proof would be upon the moving party on the issue rather than having Joshua in the position ofbeing the moving party. For the information of the Court and the other parties, a criminal jury trial in which I am counsel before Judge Howard is expected to last at least through July 8, 2002. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Clerk of the Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 8 2002 OFACEOF 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for June 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN,# 97225 Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on July 2, 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, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 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 Lt~ Dennis R. Hansen 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 June 28, 2002 Based on the information available at)v1ay j _t 2002,;frie ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 01/02, iUbj'eb(to periodic adJustrr.i'knis: 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. A072A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING FIL~e EAS ~ S. 1~~ RT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT T RN'2Ji 1 ~NSA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL - 5 2002 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. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS On July 3, 2002, LRSD filed a Motion in Limine and Supporting Memorandum Brief arguing that: (1) because Joshua's witness list fails to comply with the Court's May 15, 2002 Order, Joshua should be required, on or before 5 :30 p.m. on July 10, 2002, to identify the date and time each of their witnesses will be called, to identify the issues on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue; (2) certain Joshua exhibits should be excluded because they have not been provided to LRSD as required by the Court's May 15 Order; (3) Joshua should not be allowed to call Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babb, because, in earlier evidentiary hearings, Joshua's counsel has called and examined both of them on student achievement, guidance counseling, and advanced placement courses; (4) various Joshua exhibits should be excluded because, on their face, they do not directly relate to the three remaining issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities; (5) any testimony from Jim Mosby and Jody Carter related to their recent removal as principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High 6 1 6 A072A (Rev.8/82) School should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402, and 403; (6) Joshua's failure to identify any witnesses or exhibits for use in their \"thirty minutes of true rebuttal\" prevents them from presenting any rebuttal testimony at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002; and (7) Joshua Exhibits 767- 776 and 791 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 801-804, 401-403, and 901. The schedule for LRSD and Joshua submitting their exhibits and witness lists to the Court on July 9 and the commencement of evidentiary hearings on July 22 necessitates an expedited response from Joshua to LRSD's Motion in Limine. Therefore, Joshua must file their response to LRSD's Motion in Limine no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2002, and serve other counsel by fax at or before that time. Thereafter, the Court will promptly decide the merits of LRSD's Motion in Limine. Since time is of the essence, this Order will be faxed to counsel of record as soon as it is entered. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11f DA TED this f day of July, 2002. UNITED STATESDlSTRIC DG THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ ON 7/6/0'6 gy_O-c~,-_=-_..~,a.-- -2- ---- -- RECEIVED .- - -- 'JUL 1 O 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING - . ; /:JLt:::,o .. - E.A.s,f;p. Dtsr g;;;. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT QOURT Noisr~;g~ uRr EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL OB KA.ivsAs WESTERN_DIVISION JAMs W 2002 By:  MccoR MACK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I , ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD 1. Joshua Intervenors ' Witness List , CLERK p.1,,1\u0026lt;,\u0026lt;Dl.A ,,...._.u. F [f::RK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors maintain that their witness list generally parallels the list submitted by the LRSD, by identifying the topics of witness testimony. For example, the LRSD can maintain that the summary of the testimony of Dr. Leslie (for 6 hours) \"provide[s] a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue\" only on a \"tongue in cheek\" basis.  The Joshua Intervenors face two problems in preparing a witness list, which the LRSD does not face. The LRSD has ready access to all of its witnesses, who are its employees. In contrast, none of Intervenors ' witnesses are employees.1 Moreover, at least 11 oflntervenors' witnesses are subject to the direction of the LRSD. These are witnesses number 1-3, 5, 7, 14-15, 18-19, 23, and 26 on the Intervenors ' list. Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors will submit a supplemental witness list by 5 :00 p.m. on 1Doctors Roberts and Ross are experts designated by Intervenors. -1- July 10, 2002. 2. Asserted Failure to Provide Exhibits The LRSD complains about the failure to provide exhibits identified by the numbers 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. Each exhibit is an LRSD document(s) . . Some are voluminous. By this objection, the LRSD is simply seeking to frustrate the Joshua Intervenors' effort to present the position of the class in a reasonable manner. Exhibit 801, \"LRSD Quarterly Status Reports,\" was the subject of testimony during the earlier hearings. These reports contain information regarding enrollment in advanced courses, as well as the extent to which students succeed. 3. Testimony by Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babbs These associate superintendents served on the LRSD compliance committee during the implementation of the revised plan and have had responsibility for the areas of guidance counseling and extracurricular activities. LRSD plans to offer lengthy testimony by Ms. Mitchell (two hours). The Joshua Intervenors, in contrast, propose to question each administrator for approximately 10 minutes. In this light, it is appropriate to allow Joshua Intervenors to proceed with the testimony, with the LRSD having the right to object to a question as repetitive. 4. Various Exhibits Assertedly Not Relevant to Issues to be Heard The exhibits deal with the following issues: advance placement: 754, 801-802 guidance and counseling: 780, 786-789 extracurricular activities: 746 (lumped statistics), 771, 773 , 775 rebuttal: 743,747,749, 750,755 , 757,758,759,760,762,763 , 764,779, 785 will not be offered: 752, 756, 761, 777, 778, 779, 782, 783 , 784 -2- 5. Testimony from Jim Mosbv and Jodv Carter The Joshua Intervenors do not plan to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding \"their recent removal as principals.\" 6. Rebuttal The Joshua Intervenors will present rebuttal testimony by ODM Monitors Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. They will address the LRSD's testimony at the earlier hearing, which asserted compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 of the revised plan. 7. Joshua Exhibits 767-776. 791 These letters written by Ms. Springer are offered to show notice to the district of various problems. Counsel for Joshua Intervenors intends to explore at the hearing what if any investigation and other responsive actions were undertaken by the LRSD, after receipt of the letters. The LRSD pledged to implement programs, policies and procedures to insure non-discriminatory access to extracurricular activities. Its administrators ' responses to the letters is therefore relevant. The Joshua Intervenors should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791 , dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell. 8. Relevance Generally The LRSD's efforts \"to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors ... \" [Motion in Limine at 3] and to rely on Section 1983 entity liability standards [Memorandum Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion in Limine] is flawed. These gambits ignore the law of the case, and, more particularly, multiple promises, throughout the plan, to implement various activities without regard to whether or not non-compliance was called to the attention of the Board. See, e.g., Revised ,., -.)- Plan Sections 2.5, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.12.1, 6, and 11. As emphasized in Joshua Intervenors ' response of May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals has held and reiterated that the terms of settlement agreements in this case provide the standards for measuring the performance of the school districts, here the LRSD. [Memorandum at 47] The Revised Plan does not identify Section 1983 entity liability principles as the standard for evaluating compliance with its terms. Rather, it calls, inter alia, for adoption of various programs, policies, and procedures, their implementation, and monitoring to identify problems and provide a basis for remedial actions. School Board members are not LRSD employees, their commitment is for less than full-time. Manifestly, the plan envisions implementation activities by administrators and other - elements of the work force, without qualification in terms of notice to the school board. Joshua Intervenors ' proof will be consistent with this fran1ework. There will likely be questioning on the adoption of programs, policies, and procedures (largely the domain of the school board). There will be questioning of implementation, or the lack thereof (largely the domain offulltime employees). The effort to exclude evidence, wholesale, is without merit. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, John -W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -4- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has/been senTby fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this ,?~ day of l-,, 1,  ----:-2002: -r:;:-- 'I // I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis l'l. H en  FRIDAY, 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; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I / Joen W. Walker -5- J VHl'i W WHLKt.t-\u0026lt; t-' H N0 . 571 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: July 8, 2002 To: Ms. Ann Brawn Marshall Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Sender: Jolm W. Walker P. l/6 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheer)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758'\u0026gt;\" The information conr.a.ined uu:his fucsimile message is atto111ey privileged and confidential information intended only fur the use of the individual or entity named aoove. !f the reader of this m~sagc is not the intended recipient, or me emp1oyee or agent responsible to deliver it fo the inrended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communicttion Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. R CEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTu.folb~cPuRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 0 9 2002 J L 11 2002 OFFICE OF OESEG EGATION MONITORING A072A (Rev.8/82) 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 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Earlier today, United States Magistrate Judge Tom Ray conducted a hearing to receive the parties ' pre-marked exhibits, exhibit lists, witness lists, and witness statements as provided for in paragraph 5 of my May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order. In addition, at my request, Judge Ray also addressed several housekeeping matters associated with the hearing that I have scheduled for 8 :30 a.m. on Friday, July 12, 2002, on LRSD's Motion In Limine. I have now reviewed the transcript of the hearing before Judge Ray, and want to reiterate several points covered during that hearing. First, the evidentiary hearing that is scheduled to commence before me at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002, is limited to testimony and other evidence relevant to LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations in three specific areas of the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2); (2) extracurricular activities ( 2.6); and (3) guidance A072A (Rev.8/82) counseling ( 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 ). The only other evidence the Court will receive during the July 22 hearing will be limited to: (a) LRSD's obligation of good faith( 2.1), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling; and (b) LRSD's obligations regarding African-American students' achievement ( 2.7), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. 1 Second, after reviewing Joshua's witness list and witness statements, it appears to me that some or all of the anticipated testimony of a number of their witnesses falls outside the scope of the July 22 evidentiary hearing, as defined above, and as defined earlier by Judge Wright, and by my Order of May 9. I assume these potential problems will be cured by the supplemental witness lists and statements that Joshua and LRSD will file by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. In connection with those supplemental witness lists and statements, I expect both sides to comply fully with each and every requirement of paragraph 3 of my May 15 Scheduling Order. Third, I want to reiterate that I will be continuing the practice followed by Judge Wright of allocating and keeping time for each side during the July 22 hearing. As my May 15 Scheduling Order makes clear, Joshua and LRSD are each allocated twenty hours to present their cases. Each side should keep this overall time constraint in mind in calling and examining their witnesses. Absent compelling circumstances, I do not intend to give either side more than their allocated twenty hours. 11 am mindful that Joshua also will be allowed thirty minutes at the beginning of the July 22 hearing to call Ann Marshall and Gene Jones as rebuttal witnesses on the three issues tried to conclusion during the earlier evidentiary hearings before Judge Wright: (1) good faith; (2) African-American student achievement; and (3) student discipline. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) Finally, I have reviewed the so-called \"rebuttal exhibits\" that Joshua intends to introduce during the rebuttal testimony of Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. Many of these rebuttal exhibits appear to be documents that were available and could have, and, if they wanted them in evidence, should have, been introduced by Joshua in their case in chief. During the July 12 hearing, Joshua's counsel should be prepared to address how those exhibits constitute true rebuttal documents. The lawyers for the parties, especially the lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, should have someone watching their fax machines commencing no later than 8:30 a.m. this Thursday, July 11. It is possible that I will enter an Order early Thursday morning in response to filings made by these parties Wednesday afternoon. The Order may require additional work before the hearing scheduled for 8:30 a.m. this Friday, July12. IT IS SO ORDERED#. DATED this qr aay of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRIC'i'JUDGE -3- FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas JAester,'1 Division Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 TO: Chris Heller \u0026amp; Clay Fendley Sam Jones . 376-2147 376-9442 3i5-1027 221-3331 374-4187 682- 2591 371-0100 Stevejones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennis Hanson Anne Marshaii DATE: There are _\"f.J pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. Z:0/10 3rnrl MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wiison, J; U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Ro,..,~ \"R 7,,0, ~,, I \"-\"-J ~ ,, t RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002  OFFICEOF ESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors submit their witness list in response to the Court's several directives regarding these matters. Joshua is presenting below a summary of the testimony in some detail of each witness it will call on direct. Joshua is presenting a table of the name of each witness, the expected time each witness will take on direct examination and the approximate time of the appearance of each witness. The times of the appearances of each witness are presented taking into account an equal an1ount of cross examination time by the plaintiff. Possible times for lunch breaks are included. In presenting the matter in this manner, we do not intend to offend the Court by suggesting the exact times of breaks and/or for lunch, nor do wish to offend the Court by presenting this document in this fashion. The manner in which we present it will provide the Court and the parties a timeline of expected testimonial events and provide easy and ready reference to each forthcoming event. We expect our case in chief to be approximately 11 hours (660 minutes). We expect to use the remaining time for either cross examination or for rebuttal (up to two hours). -1- SADIE MITCHELL: The issues Sadie Mitchell will address are extra-curricular activities and guidance counseling. Her respective testimony is that Joshua raised issues of disparate treatment with respect to extra-curricular activities for which she or some subordinate made responses. She will address examples such as discrimination in 9th grade athletics, band, scouts, choir, mock trial, quiz bowl, cheerleaders and the activities wherein participation by race is reflected in the various student yearbooks. She will also address the complaints regarding student honors and efforts to improve minority paiiicipation in AP and honors type activities particularly at Central and Hall High Schools. She will also relate to the inadequacy of data collection regarding extra-cunicular activities and the decision to aggregate rather than disaggregate activity data. She will confirm that aggregation of the data presents a false picture of activity participation in the respective schools which include all the secondary schools. She will also address the failme rates in advanced placement courses as reflected in the Quarterly Reports previously discussed before Judge Wright. JUNIOUS BABBS: Junious Babbs will address the identification of particular athletic programs and other activities with limited African American participation and plans for remediation, review of each school's annual guidance report to identify areas of limited service to African American students such as a) course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher education opportunities; b) access to financial aid; and c) course enrollment to help to facilitate graduation. He will also address his investigation into the participation and inequities thereof of minority students in AP courses and the passing and failure rates related thereto. MS. SHARON BROOKS: Ms. Sharon Brooks will testify regarding her placement of -2- elementary school African American boys without utilization of counseling services for a period of two months. She will address failure to provide a teacher and a counselor for those boys, whom she separated from the girls. DR. MICHAEL FAUCETTE: Dr. Michael Faucette, a teacher at Central High School, will discuss in detail the problems with the administration of advanced placement courses, the racial effect of the placements, the manner in which the placements are made, how the placements tend to favor one group of children over another, the problems with scheduling and how those scheduling decisions interact with other decisions of placement and counseling; participation in extra-curricular activities; the favor given to white students at Central high School; the disparate effect of AP courses with respect to teaching, awards, and other oppo1iunities; and he will discuss the issue of the District's good faith compliance. MS. PAM MERCER: Ms. Pam Mercer, an African American parent, will discuss the District's good faith establishment and administration of AP courses at Central High School, the exclusion of African American students therefrom, the privileges extended by AP teachers and activities sponsors to white students, counseling of students for placement in AP courses and the racial atmosphere which exists within AP classes. She will discuss her membership on the Activities Advisory Board for the school district and her dissatisfaction with its efforts. CRYSTAL MERCER: Crystal Mercer will discuss her dissatisfaction with guidance counseling services with respect to the following areas: access to financial aid and course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational oppo1iunities. JASON MERCER: Jason Mercer will discuss his dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure more African American student participation in AP courses. He will also discuss content ., -.)- of Exhibit 797. D.J. THAMES and A VIS THAMES: D.J. Thames, student at Fair High School and Avis Thames, his mother. Their testimony will cover their dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure fair participation in extra-curricular activities such as football. ROMONA HORTON: RomonaHorton,parentof students at Central High School and Forest Heights Jr. High School will testify regarding her dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to encourage her children's participation and retention in Pre AP and AP courses at their respective schools. She will also testify regarding her dissatisfaction with counseling services with respect to her children's success in the classes, access to financial aid and course emollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational opportunities. In addition to testimony regarding dissatisfaction with her children's participation in AP, she will also address the use of racial slurs by an AP teacher. She will also discuss the District's response to her complaints. JODIE CARTER: Jodie Carter will discuss special problems with AP classes in the school district as a whole and at McClellan High School in particular. He will specifically relate to the manner in which courses are constituted at the various schools. The problem with staffing the classes and in filling the classes at the various schools. He will discuss his understanding of guidance counseling as it relates to AP placement, participation in extra-curricular activities and the District's good faith. He will specifically relate to problems that he has observed regarding school board members' support of AP classes, guidance counseling and extra-curricular activities. He will discuss the issue ofracial placement and how the counseling system has worked in his observation at the school district over time. This necessarily will include the varying levels of support provided by the central administration with respect to AP courses, guidance counseling and extra-curricular -4- activities at McClellan in comparison to Parkview and Central High School. MS. DOROTHY MCDONALD: Ms. Dorothy McDonald will discuss counseling in general and at McClellan High School in particular. She will discuss the way counseling has a more negative impact on African Americans than white students at McClellan High School and as she understands it to be at other schools based upon her meetings with JoEvelyn Elston and other persons who oversee and administer the other counseling progran1s. MS. CASSANDRA NORMAN: Ms. Cassandra Norman, Principal at J.A. Fair High School will discuss counseling services, placement in pre AP and AP classes at both the middle and Jr. High school and high school and how those courses differ from similar courses at Central and Parkview High Schools. She will discuss AP class sizes, expenditures, teacher turnover and the support of school administrators for her school with respect to these issues. She will address issues regarding counseling within Fair and the problems with a counselor that she had whodid not address the issues in equitable way regarding African American students. CHRIS PAYNE: Chris Payne a former student at J.A. Fair High School will discuss race discrimination in extra-curricular activities. His efforts to participate in the Quiz Bowl at Fair, counseling that he received at Fair while he was there, and the fact that he did not feel that he was fairly treated with respect to those subjects. MR. KENNETH MOORE: Mr. Kenneth Moore will discuss extra-curricular activities, counseling and good faith compliance. His testimony will relate to his experiences at Hall and Fair High Schools and how counseling works at those schools to the detriment of African American students with respect to their participation in extra-curricular activities and with respect to their AP type placements. -5- MR. RAY GILLESPIE: Mr. Ray Gillespie will discuss his role with respect to overseeing the athletic extra-curricular programs and activities and assisting in the monitoring of school programs at the direction of Les Carnine to ostensibly assure eliminating racial discrimination. He will testify regarding the lack of suppo1i that he received in his efforts to achieve equity and his conclusion that African American students and staff are treated differently with respect to these subject areas in comparison to similarly situated white persons. MR. JIMMY MOSBY: Mr. Jimmy Mosby will discuss guidance counseling, extra-curricular activities and pre AP courses during his tenure at Hall High School and at Southwest Middle School. He will address the District's lack of support with respect to pre AP and cow1seling. MS. SUE STRICKLAND: Ms. Sue Strickland will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. Ms. Strickland will also address the lack of truthfulness by Superintendent Carnine with respect to communication with the school board. DR. KA THERINE MITCHELL: Dr. Katherine Mitchell will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. DR. MICHAEL DAUGHTERY: Dr.Michael Daughtery will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. He will discuss his efforts to understand the necessity for relating counseling to AP and pre AP placement, monitoring counseling programs and AP programs and his efforts to have AP programs -6- to become more inclusive for minority students. He will discuss how students can be expected to succeed in AP courses in middle and high schools if they haven't been taught and properly counseled in the earlier grades. DR. TERRENCE ROBERTS: Dr. Tenence Roberts is a District Consultant regarding desegregation activities. He will address the necessity for there to be a correlation between guidance counseling and placement in AP courses. He will discuss the manner in which he has been used by the District to train teachers with respect to these subjects in particular and other subjects in general in Little Rock. Counsel is endeavoring to have him available on either July 23 rd or July 24th . He lives in California and travel arrangements have not been made. DR. STEVEN ROSS: Dr. Steven Ross will testify about the District's good faith compliance, AP courses. He will also discuss the need for criteria for placement and whether all students may be qualified in the absence of standards for placement in AP courses without earlier foundations and specific training. MS. ETHEL DUNBAR: Ms. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School will discuss elementary good faith compliance, gifted and talented courses, guidance cotmseling and the assistance received with respect to these issues from the Division of Instruction. REBUTTAL Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Ann Marshall 7/22/02 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. 15 Gene Jones 7/22/02 15 -7- DIRECT EXAMINATION Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Sadie Mitchell 7/22/02 9:30 a.m. 30 Junious Babbs 7/22/02 10:30 a.m. 30 Sharon Brooks 7/22/02 11 :30 a.m. 15 7/22/02 Lunch 12-1:00 p.m. 60 Dr. Michael Faucette 7/22/02 1:00 p.m. 90 Pam Mercer 7/22/02 4:00 p.m. 30 Crystal Mercer 7/22/02 5: 00 p.m. 10 Jason Mercer 7/22/02 5:20 p.m. 15 D .J. Thames/ A vis Thames 7/22/02 6:30 p.m. 15 Romona Horton 7/23/02 8:30 a.m. 30 Jodie Carter 7/23/02 9:30 a.m 120 7/23/02 Lunch 12- 1 :00 p.m. 60 Dorothy McDonald 7/23/02 2:30 p.m. 15 Cassandra Norman 7/23/02 3:00 p.m. 45 Chris Payne 7/23/02 4:30 p.m. 10 Kenneth Moore 7/23/02 4:50 p.m. 15 Ray Gillespie 7/23/02 5:20 p.m. 15 Jimmy Mosby 7/24/02 8:30 a.m. 15 Sue Strickland 7/24/02 9:00 a.m. 10 Dr. Katherine Mitchell 7/24/02 9:20 a.m. 10 Dr. Michael Daughtery 7/24/02 9:40 a.m. 30 Dr. Terrence Roberts 7/24/02 10:40 a.m. 30 -8- Dr. Steven Ross 7/24/02 Ms. Ethel Dunbar 7/24/02 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781 ) 862-1955 11 :40 a.m. 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,,,-,, Jdhn W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 vJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -9- 30 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this 10th day of July, 2002: Mr. Clay Fendley 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 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 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I . ,,('(;~~--/:.,/ J,ohn W. Walker . RiCEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 OFACEOF - SEGREGATION MONITORING J:JL 1 O 2~:;, JAMES W r, :,..c .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO   .- ., -ORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. 1v1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA lNTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENT AL WITNESS LIST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Joshua filed its Witness List earlier today. Inadvertently omitted was the name of Ms. Pat Watson, Counselor at Hall High School. Her name is being submitted as a witness who will address the District 's counseling programs, her instructions as to how they are to be implemented and how they are in fact implemented at Hall High School. She will address the counseling role for placement into Pre-AP, AP and Honors courses and she will relate to the counseling with respect to scholarships and other opportunities as well as course enrollment . Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. We urge to allow us to use her testimony on either the 23 rd or 241h if we are making substantial progress and have additional time we have not used in our case and chief. Otherwise her testimony will that of Ms. Ethel Dunbar on July 24th at approximately 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert Pressman - MA Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1 955 \"'John W o.-64046 JOHNW. WALKER, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on 1~10'11 ~-ay of ~uly , 2092. \\ Ml , ! I ' / -~ / \";c' L}/ -' / . ~ /Ar~-;/ tz~-tt i \\, RECEIVED FILED U,S, DISTRICT COURT EASTE~N DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1,2 2002 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1 0 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. , 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Attached is a copy of the transcript of the telephone conference held yesterday afternoon. The directions in this transcript are the orders of the Court. - ord.LRSDI IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE VV!TH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ FRCP oN_!Jd__O-Od::'BY -,~~----'-~=-  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, V . No. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Little Rock, Arkansas July 9, 2002 4:45 P.M. Defendants, MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., APPEARANCES: Intervenors. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON United States District Judge. For the Plaintiff: CHRISTOPHER J. HELLER, ESQ. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 For the Defendant: (No appearance. ) Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 1 For Joshua Intervenors: ROBERT PRESSMAN, ESQ. John Walker, P.A. 2 1723 Broadway 3 4 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Proceedings reported by machine stenography; transcript 5 prepared by computer . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 2 1 2 P R O C E E D I N G S THE COURT: All right, we're having a telephone 3 3 conference hearing this afternoon on the record in Little Rock 4 School District against Pulaski County, et al. It's 5 LR-C-82-866. This conference is regarding a letter that was 6 just hand delivered to me dated July 9 from Mr. Walker and Mr. 7 Pressman. It shows a copy to Mr. Heller. I am going to 8 notify by letter in the morning other lawyers of this 9 telephone conference so that they can order a transcript of 10 this hearing if they want to from Ms. Fant. But in any event, 11 I want to address this letter, and I will just start with the 12 first paragraph. Apparently Joshua got Exhibits 793 and 801 13 over to Judge Ray's courtroom deputy, Ms. Swanson, this 14 afternoon as was directed by Judge Ray this morning. By the 15 way, Judge Ray is here in my conference room. But I 16 understand there are other exhibits that have not been brought 17 over for marking, which are 794, 799 and 800 and I'm puzzled. 18 What's the problem with them, Mr. Pressman? 19 MR. PRESSMAN: One of the exhibits is five 20 yearbooks, and we were told that we could pick up the year- 21 books at five different high schools. 22 23 THE COURT: Okay. MR. PRESSMAN: And take them away to copy. And Mr. 24 Walker wasn't here. I didn't know how to handle that. 25 THE COURT: Okay, I will give you -- 794 and 799 and Carolyn s. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 800 I will give you until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow to do what's 2 necessary to have them delivered to Ms. Swanson by 2:00 p.m. 3 All right, are there other exhibits that we need to 4 address? 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't think so. THE COURT: All right, let's look at paragraph 1 of the letter; that he and Judge Wilson are apprised of the following position: \"One, we want to reserve for rebuttal that part of our 20 hours which we do not utilize in our case in chief.\" I'll, of course, allow you to reserve a certain 4 11 amount of time for rebuttal. I will remind you again that I'm 12 big on true rebuttal, not just more evidence that could have 13 been introduced during your case in chief. And I wouldn't 14 allow you, for example, to put on five hours of testimony and 15 reserve 15. What do you want? About an hour or two hours for 16 rebuttal, Mr. Pressman? 17 MR. PRESSMAN: That was -- that was -- that's what 18 Mr. Walker told me. He has handled this. 19 THE COURT: Is Mr. Walker there with you? 20 21 22 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No, he's at the courthouse. THE COURT: Well, I will give you two hours for rebuttal and you notify me by 2:00 p .m. tomorrow by fax -Judge Ray and me both by fax and the other parties if you want 24 more than two hours reserved for rebuttal. I'm not inclined 25 to reserve much more than that, but I will give you an Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 opportunity to address that. If you haven't addressed it by 2:00 p.m., I will assume that two hours is satisfactory with you. Now the next sentence in paragraph 1 I find quite disturbing. It says, and I quote: \"We'll attempt to provide a more specific response regarding rebuttal time in our supplemental document regarding our witnesses.\" Now, I entered this order in May directing the identity of witnesses and detailed statements with respect to 5 10 what they were going to say, and that order was not met. The 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 requirements of that order were not met. Judge Ray today extended that until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. As I understand, Mr. Walker was in the courtroom part of the time, at least, but I'm not sure I understand what \"attempt\" -- why you use \"attempt\" rather than say \"we will comply.\" If you will look  at the title of that document that I entered back in May or those two documents, the word \"Order\" is there, not 18 suggestion. 19 And so would you address .that, what the problem is 20 with that, not getting that detailed statement or just 21 attempting to do it? 22 23 24 25 MR. PRESSMAN: I have not been involved in the development of the facts regarding these three areas. I was asked to do this hearing because Mr. Walker was not available. THE COURT: Well, of course, he knew well in advance Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 of the trial before Judge Howard he was going to have it and he's had since May to meet those directions. You need to get him tonight and tell him that I'm going to take a very dim look at an attempt rather than a full compliance by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Will you pass that message on to him specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: All right, I appreciate it very much. In paragraph number 2, I'm going to solve that 9  problem real quickly. Just assume that the other side will 10 take as long for cross-examination as you take for direct and 11 we'll worry about whether I ask questions or not. That won't 12 13 14 15 count against you, of course, so that should make it very easy. Any problems with that? MR. PRESSMAN: I will just we'll comply. I just 16 wish to say that I think that attorneys -- it's proper to 17 inform the Court if you feel that the Court's orders are 18 unreasonable, and that was the reaction that we had to these 19 orders about timing. 20 21 THE COURT: What's unreasonable about it? MR. PRESSMAN: Because these things just can't be, 22 you know, determined with that degree of precision. 6 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, you know, of course, judges across the country are doing this regularly. I know one judge from -- district judge in Chicago who is now in the last couple of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 years been promoted to the Seventh Circuit who runs two stop 2 watches, and they count objections against your time if you 3 don't win them, so I don't think that's unreasonable at all. 4 So I'm directing that you comply with it . And, like I say, 5 just give your time for direct examination and assume the 6 other side is going to take the exact same amount of time for 7 cross so you can calculate it. 8 Now I will say this, and I hesitate to say it 9 because I don't want to sound like I will give too much 7 10 leeway. You have a total amount of time here so if you want to 11 go 30 minutes on a witness that you estimated at 20 and take 12 13 14 it off another witness, that's all right. The total amount of time, that is the main thing. However, I'm not going to allow taking much more than your estimated time because what will 15 happen we'll get down to the end and you say, \"I have the most 16 crucial witness I've got in the whole case and I don't have 17 any time to put them on . \" So you'll have to stick pretty 18 close to your projected time . So that issue has been 19 resolved. 20 On the next page, the last page, the second page: 21 \"Last, we want to again point out we do not have the same 22 ability as the LRSD to control the order in which our 23 witnesses will appear. We are not dealing with persons who 24 25 are our employees.\" I'll cure the problem right now. Subpoena your witnesses for 8:15 on July the 22nd. Have them Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 all there . I will get them in the courtroom, swear them in, 2 and tell them to either stay at the courthouse or be where 8 3 they can be reached by telephone so you can get them there. I 4 will take that burden off your back, Mr. Pressman. 5 Hello? 6 7 8 9 10 11 fees? 12 13 MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Doesn't that solve it? MR. PRESSMAN: Okay . Yes, it solves it. THE COURT: All right. MR. PRESSMAN: I guess we have to pay them witness THE COURT: I would assume. It's very unlikely -- if the exhibits are not over 14 here by 2 : 00 p . m. tomorrow that we have designated, it's very 15 unlikely I will allow their use at the trial. 16 Are there any other issues that we can resolve at 17 this point? If not, I'm going to sign off. 18 19 Honor. 20 21 MR. HELLER: We haven't seen that letter, Your THE COURT: Who's speaking? MR. HELLER: I'm sorry. This is Chris Heller. But 22 it sounds like the issues have been covered and we certainly 23 don't have any other issues at this point. 24 25 THE COURT: All right. How about you, Mr . Pressman? MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't have any other issues, Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 9 1 but I think that Your Honor's approach doesn't account for the 2 3 4 5 6 7 different kind of practice that Mr. Walker has from a large law firm that has a school system as a client. THE COURT: In what respect does it not account for it. What specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Because there aren't the same resources available. Mr. Walker is a unique resource in 8 Arkansas. People are constantly calling him from all over the 9 10 11 12 13 14 state every day about their civil rights problems. His time is called upon from scores of different directions. He has a lot of pressures on his time. He does the best he can within that context, and it's not as easy to comply with these kinds of directives for him as it is for a large law firm. THE COURT: Well, you know, I practiced for many 15 years as a solo practitioner in a small firm and judges 16 imposed these burdens on me regularly, and I just figured that 17 I had to double up. Of course, I was a mere street lawyer, 18 but I would suspect I probably got as much or half as much 19 again number of phone calls as Mr. Walker gets during the day, 20 so he's had since May to do this. This is a major trial. I 21 don't believe he has a more major trial. You are here, so it 22 23 24 looks to me like, Mr. Pressman, since you're one of the counsel of record you may need to stay hooked in here real tight and make sure the deadlines are met. I want you to 25 convey this to Mr. Walker very distinctly. I am not going to Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 10 1 treat him differently than I treat other lawyers. Lawyers in 2 big firms -- I happen to have had the happy experience of 3 being in a big firm myself for over two and a half years in 4 the litigation department, and the lawyers are -- each one has 5 an extremely busy practice. Now we all have a tendency when 6 we are not in one of the big firms to say, \"Oh, they've got a 7 hundred or 80 lawyers up there,\" but unfortunately each of the 8 80 or 70 lawyers has -- they are as busy as a solo 9 practitioner. They have their own solo practice, in effect. 10 I have been there, done that, and I used to get, \"You're at a 11 big firm. You\"ve got five partners that can do this, that or 12 the other.\" So I am distinctly unimpressed with that 13 position. I appreciate your expressing it and I'm glad you 14 did because it gives me an opportunity to make it clear that 15 I'm going to hold Mr. Walker to the same standard that I'm 16 going to hold the lawyers representing the other parties. 17 Everybody is going to be treated equally. 18 Is there anything else that we can bring up? I will 19 be happy to hear anything else; an objection, a complaint, 20 whatever else. I'm in a rulifying and commenting mood. 21 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, we don't have anything. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman? 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No. I mean, I just basically 24 disagree with your positions but that's -- you're the Judge. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman, you know, at least half of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 11 1 the lawyers in every case I have disagree with my position and 2 that's one of the wonderful reasons that we have an Eighth 3 Circuit in case I don't do right. But I do appreciate your 4 comments. I take them into consideration. I just I don't 5 agree with your position and particularly not that I should 6 treat Mr. Walker differently than I should another lawyer. I 7 would consider that a very, very bad thing if I did that to 8 any lawyer . 9 All right. There being nothing else that I hear 10 from the lawyers, I want to thank you all for taking this call 11 on short notice and you go have a good evening to the extent 12 you can after my rulings. 13 MR. HELLER: Thank you, Your Honor. 14 MR. PRESSMAN: All right . Thanks. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (At 5:00 p.m., the above-entitled proceedings were adjourned. ) C E R T I F I C A T E I, Carolyn S. Fant, Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings in ~e above-ent Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S REVISED WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING RECEIVED JUL 1 l 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22 , 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimon y: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan  2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American enrollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program 's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study Page I of 8 conducted by a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by AfricanAmerican students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of African-American students who did not participate; describe the new grants that have been awarded to several elementary schools to support their school improvement efforts, especially in reading/writing literacy; discuss the results of the State Benchmark examinations for grades 4, 6, and 8 (if available by the hearing date); discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK-12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District 's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on \"Advanced Placement Courses\" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001-the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; describe the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board in the implementation of the \"High Schools that Work\" framework for high school reform, especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's \"Call for Action in Education,\" and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school Page 2 of 8 - - ---- levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. Dr. Lesley will also update her testimony from November 2001 related to how she sees the District continuing to improve in the next several years. The District's efforts must also be consistent with the requirements of the new federal \"No Child Left Behind\" legislation. Accordingly, Dr. Lesley will explain the District's plan for implementing these new requirements and responding to the new accountability requirements, including the support for low-performing schools. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan 2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, JBA, JBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl, JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan  2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of African-American students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the I 999-2000 school year; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African-American teachers thought that activities Page 3 of 8 were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the Activities Advisory Board has begun functioning; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from I :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, JBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarsh.ip opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the Page 4 of 8 data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6, 2.6 .2, 2. 6.3, 2.11 and 2.11 .1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the - District. She will testify that the District has adopted the Total Quality Management philosophy and the principles underlying that philosophy; that the District has been awarded Quality Interest Award and Quality Commitment Award; that Campus Leadership Teams play an important role in school improvement; that the District has provided extensive training to make Campus Leadership Teams successful; that each school develops a school improvement plan each year, focusing on improving achievement in literacy and math; and that an important part of the District's strategy for improving achievement of African-American students is encouraging more African-American student to enroll in more rigorous academic courses. During her testimony, Ms. Mitchell will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even ifno longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Mitchell may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 5 of 8 5. Dr. Ken James. Dr. James will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 5:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. James is the current Superintendent of the District and has held that position for one year. Dr. James will testify that he supports and intends to follow District policies which require compliance with the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes. Dr. James will also discuss the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board, its implementation of the \"High Schools that Work\" framework for high school reform and the importance of students taking a rigorous program of study. Dr. James may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua lntervenors during their case. 6. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. - until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan, Constitution and federal civil rights statutes; that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan; that a representative of the Joshua Intervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua lntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Intervenors appeared on July Page 6 of 8 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect that Joy Springer appeared on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua lntervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a - timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan  8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 7 of 8 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!fjflzt1~- C. Fendley,Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail or as otherwise indicated on July 10, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (hand-delivery) 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 F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\l..RSD 2001 \\dcs-uniwy-wimcss-list- 7-22-02-revised.wpd 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 J~\u0026lt;=.F'endCley, fr -~ Page 8 of 8 RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS u r-:,S~ll; RRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 JUL 1 5 2002 OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 11, 2002 LETTER-ORDER BY FAX Mr. John Walker 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell 11 800 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Dennis Hansen 111 Center Street, Suite l 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866 Dear Counsel: The filings yesterday appear to meet most of the requirements of paragraph 3 of the May 15 order. Joshua does need to file -- today -- a detailed statement of the expected testimony of their two rebuttal witnesses. It appears that Joshua has provided the exhibits referenced in LRSD's Motion in Limine. Joshua's filing of July 8 indicates that the testimony of Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Babbs will not be duplicative -- and the questioning of each witness will only be for ten minutes. It appears that Joshua has removed some of the \"rebuttal\" exhibits listed earlier. I will take a look-see at the other exhibits at the hearing which commences at 8:30 in the morning, unless LRSD concedes that Joshua's response renders those remaining relevant for rebuttal. LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Two Joshua indicates, in its July 8 pleading, that it does not intend to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding their recent removal as principals. As long as the questioning of these two witnesses (as well as all the other witnesses) relates only to the three remaining issues, there should be no problem. Back to Joshua's two rebuttal witnesses. LRSD argues that they can't provide true rebuttal testimony, but I cannot rule on this point until I see the detailed summary of their expected testimony -- which, as noted above -- must be filed today. Turning now to Joshua Exhibit 767-776, 791 (Ms. Springer's letters). First off, let me state that I will not apply Monell in this case. That 1978 case, involving a Section 1983 complaint, is not applicable in school desegregation cases, in my view. The LRSD's objection to my ruling on this point is denied, and its exception is saved. I now quote from Joshua's July 8 filing with respect to these exhibits: The Joshua intervener should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791, dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell . I will have to be more fully advised in the premises, during the hearing in the morning, as to the exact meaning of the above-quoted paragraph. Joshua's July 8 filing also indicates that these exhibits are offered to show \"notice.\" I assume that this means that Joshua is not offering them to prove truth of the contents. If this is correct, it removes the statements from the definition of hearsay, and I must turn to the question of whether \"notice\", in this manner, is admissible, and, if so, under what theory. In view of my ruling, above, on Monell, I see no reason to go further with respect to LRSD's \"relevance generally.\" I can't put my finger on the objection right now, but, as I recall, LRSD objected to Joshua's designation of LRSD's exhibits as Joshua's exhibits too. If I recall the objection correctly, it is overruled, and LRSD's exception is saved. While courthouse lore is often contrary to established law, it has been the practice of trial lawyers in this state, since the mind of man and woman runneth not to the contrary, to designate the other party's exhibits as their own. LRSD contends (again, as I recall it) that this designation is contrary to some provision in the May LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Three l 5 order. If that order prohibited this specific designation, I'm going to ignore that particular portion of the order (in this context). If there are other issues that should be addressed in the morning, I would be much obliged if the parties would send Judge Ray and me a fax today identifying those issues. Thank you. ci!il~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Original to the Clerk of the Court RECEIVED 9N1110llNOW NOllYD3\\193S30 JUL 1 s 2002 United States District Court ~033wo --::aor--______EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTIU~rr _ ARI\u0026lt;ANSAS ZOOZ 8 1 1nr - OFACEOF T TTT: r: Rnr'f(Fcltm~~SION rnE ii.R~Ilg~~OM~E~~cr EAST~r1f.Pc1STAICT ARK'lTNSAs ~~~jl:I JUL 1\"' 1 2002 LASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et a!.MES W McCORMACK, CLERK CASE NIBvffiER: 4 : 82CV008, ,_..,.,. 1--:- . B~: DEP. C[ERKI --  TnO~L'\\S R..~Y Christopner Eelle:::-, et al. Sam Jones, et a1. u!v\" 9, ?QQ? \\ ~a'fi,1.yn Fant \\ FsF Swapsol! . - - x~ 7-~-i;: - ' :x ~~b ~ I I ::x '/ Yip I I ex 'JtP \\ \\ \\ I \\ ~ 4S \\ \\ \\ I \\ I ex 1 5,) I ( I I I ex '757 I l I I I ex 153 I \\ I I I 1 cxt~ I ) \\ \\ \\ ~,si; I I I I . . $:~~;ot;;,ff'g;_\\vc.~ ~o' l~-r1'14\"~ ~ Tu-14-eo r ~ ~ -/2, ~ ~-a {~ ~qo) (-~ ~ 0'1-;;;i...q-ot ~ _,, ~\u0026lt;;J.\u0026amp;,.._ . hw--,.._-ft ~ H-% tL,v/., ~,~-t ~7-.J.-O ;,' . /07) I t-~ ~ I I - I le -oo ~~ ~ ~ 'To \\~~ I c;__ - mi:iJ_ cue~ 03 -01 -o 1 0 . 1-l T ~ 0-,ui_ /14 w....;t cf.d_-fa, C:3-07-D( (l.f:/)..'i/11-f .f'(i/4 ; I It,, ::..n,._d.J.. clLW D 7-b--ul (rfJr.ri - -le l liJ(),\\J. (h.ti_ - ~ ~ D7-11p-ot {. g~ 1 (-r,,..\u0026amp;.l I.,~ o\u0026lt;o-~g--01 c,:o\u0026lt;:sa..-f'r\u0026lt;- F H~ ~ -fc o-r,J2.-n4,..;,2 ,~ ~ ~I ( P. tq;;\u0026gt;. tL.d /q 3 \\ u cv ~ :J ;o United States District Court ________E_ AS_TE_RN __ DtSTIUCT OF --:::-=:ARKAN==-~SA~S _______ I T TTTJ 'C' Barz DIVISION [T ROCK SCF.OOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJ11BER: 4: 8 2CVOO! J:-iHO~L\u0026gt;\\S RAY I ..._,...Ch:-   11 al  1-- r1.stopne= J::ie_ er, et . Sam jones, et al . .!u!v' 9, 2002 l.aTI,1yn Fant I w;; Swapson ex 7 rsr; '!- '1-0 ~ -~ cl.t:rfu- oq-.).q-oo ~ ~ ~ ~ / K~ -~ IU:P~ ;;Jboo-O~ CR _57) I I ~ -riutJ- d,i.,# 10 - 3-00 ~ ~, e~ ~ ~ k - ~ ~ -'Alt ~1--~ ( A @J I 0 l I\\ I I I I ( - h\\._~  Q -I~ ~ I 3 - if I  I rJ.-.,J. Ca:~ c.~ 1q ') I .f\\ - ;.. United States District Court -----------=EA:..:..::.S.;::.;:TE=RN_ __ DtSTIUCT OF ARKANSAS  I TTTT ,:- Rory --;:;D~[V~IS~I07-;\"N~-------- [T ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE IBJMBER: 4: 82CVOOl T\"\"'nfmL-\\S RAY 1-- 1-- Chriscophe-:- Eeller, et al. Sam Jones, et: al. Ju!v\" 9, 2002 \\t'arcilyn Fane \\ :acf'\"\" 5 . . . . - -   ~--~v  wapson \\cx'Y7(p \\ \\ \\ \\ \\~ ~ Ofv-07-06 ~ ~ il\u0026gt;~1  ex 117 I I I I 1e~ /k ~:;;~-OI United States District Court -----= ______ E_AS_TE_R_N __ D1STR.ICT OF -~ARK.!~!\\N:7SA~S ______ _ - I TTTJ ,:- :gnrx DIVISION ITTLE ROCK SCROOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N\"'illvffiER: 4: 82CVOO! Ju!v\" 9, 2002 I \\ \\ ex 1ero  I I ...-.... ......... Christopher Eeller, et al. I. t:\"a'fp1 yn F an_t I,__ Kathv s~apson I I I I (-;y...r,i,__,t ~ 09-3o-CO - ~ c=r-c..,, __ -/TJ ~ -ak h{Jz;,/.4- t..,\\ ~ 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 I \\ I ~  1 - ~~ Ct4\u0026lt;M..e. - I ~v-Q_ e,o ~d-'7t j ~ ~ 68-04--Cfq ~ ~ rn~ I] United States District Court ~-------E_A_ST_ER_N ___ D1Sn.ICT OF --=::-::ARK.!::::!\\N:::-:S-;-A_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- pnry DIVISION .ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I. 'ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. , rnfmL~S RAY I I ........, __ Christopher Eeller, et al. mtv\" 9, 2002 \\.t\"a'fl\u0026gt;1.yn Fant I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT LIST CASE NIBvIBER: 4: 82CVOQ. ~  I . I United States District Court ________ EA_ST_ER_N __ D!STRICT OF_~ARKAN==SA;.:;....S ______ _ - I TT.,..J\"\" :gnrK D[VISION ~ITTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NillvIBER: 4: 82CV0C 1:--THOK!\\.S RAY \\ 'chr'i';;opher Heller, e't al. \\ 7a:j;nes, et: al. ex \u0026lt;lO / I I I -pG.A.k~..J ~ ~ ~ ~1~ I l ~, 7_;);).-:,btl~ 7-~-557'6 United States District Court ___. ,..___ _____EA _S_TE_RN __ DlSTRlCT OF --=-::-ARKAN~_;;,.;.SA~S _______ - I TTTJ, ROCK DIVISION CTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4: s2cvooc T\"\"'fiim-L'\\S RAY \\ 'chr':i';;opher Heller, et al. I ~-~nes, et al. J,....u .1. \" 'v\" 9, 2002 1--\"+ F 1---  1.,ar.9.1.yn an~ Kathv \u0026lt;;wapson ex?; / 3 ~-1-0;).. J!.P.W f-lciB.,Zv().(.d' -~ =-t-14 -t-u~1 9~J~ooo (,--;;i ct- 01qq1,;1. -j-T) /-;).f-0111,;iq. I I J/.d-,0--0 ro ;1.1esc/~ ~ t -c) -DICfl :\u0026gt;.~ I -)f-ol C/ '1~) I I rf..R.. SJ) ~~\"--\" ~~\"'\u0026lt;..LO- t/-l';;l - !'119- 'd{JO() {1--~-K-o/CjCJQ;, ~ /~)(-cJ/19(:;q) 1 I I I I 1:- ~ \"'4'.P / '\\,U,VTI\\J/ ~t:\u0026lt;19 _ g 17 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ P~~vt- ~Cll.Ad   1 I I I . l ~-4 . iqqq(l-~-DI . United States District Court ~-------EA_ST_E_RN ___ DIS'TRICT OF _-::-:-:'-ARKAN~-:-:-SA_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- BOrK DIVISION LTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4:s2cvoo1: J:-iHOI:La\\S RA.Y I ~i-;;opher Heller, et al. I ~-'j;nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 l.ra'fp1.yn Fant I w~ Swapsop United States District Court __________EA_ ST_E_RN_ __ DISTIUCT OF -~ARK.!~~~SA_S_ _______ - I TTTJ i:- BOrK DIVISION :TTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST JLASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJrvfBER: 4:82CV008 Ju!v\" 9, 2002 \\ :C-a~'lyn Fan~ I w~ Swanson ex Mo I \\ex '6ltq \\ ~~ i;-D 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 11--R..SD ~Z\u0026gt; -ot ~~ ~ e  (1-:).\u0026lt;;i\"'-oJo3~ --fo f-:\u0026gt;-f-6)031./7) l'J'l'L . :/S~ Ct -:\u0026gt;-i ..... Q d-0 iJL/::;;. 71\u0026gt; I- d-\u0026lt;t-Od-() c.;9) United States District Court __________EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTRlCT OF --=::=:ARKAN~~SA~S _______ - r TTT'J ,:- B/\"\\rT\u0026lt;\" D1VISION ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST lTLASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N\"'U1v1BER: 4: 82CV001: r:-'fRO!:-LA.S RAY I 'chr'i';;opher Heller, et al. I s:;j';;'nes, ec al. .ru!v' 9, 2002 l.'.Ca'fp1.y:n F~n.t I FsF Swanson ~ sr;;-\\ ~g, I ! ! I I Im vT ~..-. DI ( t -- -;;;.. f_ o){Jb{i.  --/-\u0026lt;iJ /-\";;).f-c~O\u0026amp;:J/';;}. I 1, '\\ I~ ~  ~ P~ \\ c?.06 r - ').Do ::i. (r --;}. F '-0 ::i. o~ 'gC/7zJ I-';) ?-o~t) 77;) ex g Go I I . I 1~ ~ -  ,~ ~o~ ex '6l, ( \\ ) \\ \\ \\ \\ ~ tJ HD -1 f ' b -~;;J- 6'/-3'{ -r,, 7~ ';,;;). _,;11d 1 \\ ( \\ \\ \\ \\ t\u0026lt;.. itL,tr ~ vth~::2. ( 1 cx ~ (,)- \\ . I ~J;;;ff:LI 1 g ..-- l-0, ~ (7- -;; - [;l/l/D lD 7 - ;;;-;;) - X q, 6 3 I . / I I I I ~ ' 7  ~If!!_ ( c).COC  i~4 I \\ I I I 1~ ~7-~-m1/fe7-?2-w1J United States District Court --------E-ASTE-RN ---DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I TTII 't\" BOrK DIVISION [T~ ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al . CASE NUMJ3ER: 4: 82CVOOE .i-:-firo-t-Lt\\.S RAY \\ 'chr'i;;opher Heller, et: al.. \\ ~~nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 luTI,1yn F.ant I wF Swapson I I I -I I I I I I .. - I I \\ I I I I I I I ex I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I  I I I I I RECEIVED - JUL 2 .. 2 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING u.fo lbf cPuRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 1 8 2002 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ----~D::-:E\"\"'P.\"\"\"c\"\"\"'Le=A-R LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS ORDER 1. My May 15, 2002 Order read, in part, as follows: 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21 , 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre-marked and exchanged on or before June 21 , 2002, will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances. (Emphasis added.) 2. In a letter dated July 16, 2002, Mr. Walker enclosed seven proposed rebuttal exhibits. I will deal with them one by one. 3. CX 599 has been previously identified by Joshua and, absent a specific objection, will be admitted. 4. A Bonnie Lesley July 27, 2001 e-mail to Ms. Anne Brown (Marshall) was not - - - - - ----- - - - - -- - - - - - identified and marked prior to the June 21 deadline, and will be excluded. 5. A copy of the cover sheet for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, which is entitled \"Report on the Little Rock School District's Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan,\" dated August 11, 1999. I assume, but do not know, that Joshua plans to introduce the entire report, although nothing but the cover sheet was provided in the letter. In any event, it violates the deadline set forth above and will be excluded. 6. Ms. Bonnie Lesley's February 21, 2000 letter to Ms. Anne Brown regarding \"recent LRSD publications.\" It will be excluded for the same reason.  7. A letter dated April 13, 2000, from Ms. Anne S. Brown to Dr. Bonnie Lesley acknowledging receipt of Ms. Lesley's February 21 , 2000 letter and attachments. It will be excluded. 8. Ann Brown's April 25,200 memo to Bonnie Lesley regarding \"feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents.\" It will be excluded. 9. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring's October 26, 1999 \"Achievement Disparity Between The Races In The Little Rock School District.\" This will be excluded. 10. In the last paragraph beginning on the first page of Mr. Heller's July 17 letter, he requests that Mr. Walker be required to identify, by page and line number, the testimony of Dr. Lesley, which renders the rebuttal testimony of Ms. Marshall and Mr. Jones necessary. This is a fair request, and I normally would require it if time were not so short. I do note that Mr. Walker has only thirty minutes, total, for rebuttal. 11 . In the first full paragraph of Mr. Heller's letter dated July 17, 2002, which begins, \"in its Motion in Limine ... \" LRSD objects to the reading into evidence portions of the -2- depositions of certain Board members. With the exception of Dr. Karen Mitchell's testimony at lines 13-23 on page 27, all of remaining designated deposition testimony relates exclusively to the issues of academic achievement and program evaluations which are not among the issues which will be addressed during the hearing beginning on July 22. The objection is sustained. 12. In view of the sustaining of the objection, in the next preceding paragraph, the remainder of Mr. Heller's letter is moot. IT IS so ORDERErH DATED this / B day of July, 2002. -3- THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTf: ~UL7 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ' 7//9/tJ~ ~ 07/18/2002 11:16 5016045149 PAGE 02 RECEJVED JUL 2 -2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILJ:D : U.S. DISTRl~COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 8 2002 STATE OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENEME----=..,,_.,.;._ oJiliP~ Deputy Attorney G\u0026lt;m~l Civil Department Direct dial: (BOI) 682,2586 Mark Pryor Attorney General R~~tr,s July 17, 2002 ... _,,~ The Honorable William R. Wilson . J. a~j (U?\"'w:U;_ ~1:~~ Jr. United States District Court ~nO ~~~ '(/ uE.t. ~~sx;~~~~g~e 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 11) : ~ Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: oiC  ~ \"f!:11-(0)- eneral, counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education in the above-referenced matter, es ec y request that we be excus from the final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School Distnct s otlon or m ary tatus set to begin on Monday, July 22, 2002. The presentation of evidence by Joshua and the Little Rock School District on the remaining issues does not appear to require our attendance at the hearing and we do not intend to examine witnesses or otherwise participate. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. c=~~ DENNIS R. HANSEN Deputy Attorney General DRH/km cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. SamuelJones,III Mr. Richard W. Roachell Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Original to the Clerk of the Court 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q :\\Civi1\\DenniaHldeeeg\\2002\\Con-espondcnce\\judgeltt07-l 7 .doc JUL.19.2002 10:36AM Ja-!N W W~KER P A N0.732 P.2 na:\\;flVEu - JUL 2 2 2002 OFFIC~ OF n ,:.:( .l! '/1\"~\"  \"\" I~IO NITORING JOffNW. WAt,Klm . SHAWN CH1LD8 Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Jlldge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock. AR 12201 JoHNW. WALKER,P.A. u Ff LS::D .s. DISTR1\u0026lt;!'rcou M:TOBNXT kt LAW EASTERN DISTRICT RT 1723 B'RoADWAY ARKAN SAS Lrm\u0026amp;Rocx,ARKANSAB 72206 JUL 1 9 2002 TELEPS'ONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 814-4187 JA_M~~q5M , Sy, -,~~aw;..~,~C~LERK~ . T MOcHFECNORUYN PiE.AL. , _ DONNAJ. ~y VI.a Facsbnile: 604--5149 July 19, 2002  8210 HIMl'l!SON BoAD 14:rrt,\u0026amp; Roc:x. ~ 7l!l!l0 PROm: (501) 11n-3426  Fax (501) 372,M28 EliWl-~bell.net 7 l -- ct_..\u0026lt;!L ,. h , . ~))4 \"~ f l)f il)UI-~  ~ dra'I' ~lA lA'L  ~ \u0026lt;J r ) i: CA V\\11 L  _A _1t ,i.,VII\\ ~ ,-A,1/~p ))\\f I , ~,t.\u0026amp;_ ~;;-.;, ,, u9--1 ) _,d.Jfo/'f .A ~ !-+Iv'' \u0026gt;;f/i u C~----aJfl--\\ ~f~i,ll 1 ~l ..,_;;,a,Lv--' i),L{ . ~{' ~'':' 1:,,t--\u0026amp; 1#..\"' v-.\u0026lt;1-Y,~J:v ~1,\u0026lt;, I ,. -~--;\";j))}-tL ffed: ,e-. Y:,. i,..1L '10   1i '\\ tJ,'.Jl.-.- if J?,1 ,uA-a.t.--.;(,~{# ~ '?r.,,/,'P-\" v\" Ct ~ 1'.-c11~u~ Dear Judge Wilsoll! \\,Vw-,.-v' .,/4A, J;-{,t,Jul- \\,~A.A. ~t.U: '  IJ\"'\"t/' One of the witnesses that we listed Ms. Ethel Dunbar~ Principal of Franklin ElementarY  , pit.Q.,,( School has been subpoenaed for the 8,30. July 22, 2002 hearing as directed by the Court. She ;,(c.' (J)l)-M has called me to ask excuse from being present at 8:30 due to State Department of Education }- business at that time. She is scheduled to appear 8$ a witness on Wednesday. I see no probleui n~ L\\. in haVing hor appear on Wednesday other th8n your order. Toe District, l llll1 sure, will alao C'- \"')'. want her exoused if it is also possible. I am therefore writing to request tha1 she be allowed to ., v\"  l..f report on Wedneoda}' momlng, July 24, 2002. ralh\u0026lt;:r than July 22. 2002. ~, \"\"'; Thank you for whatever consideration you may give regarding this request. JWW:lp cc; Honorable J, Thomas Ray Mr, Chris Heller Ms, Ethel Dun.bar 10/10 39'i1d 51,rs RECEIVED JUL 2 2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Dennis Hansen Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 19, 2002 BY FAX FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 2002 ~~~~ RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866WRW / JTR Dear Mr. Hansen: You may be excused from next week's evidentiary hearing in this case a t - your discretion. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Original to the Clerk Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. RECEIVED Fii ;:~ u ~--.. , EAsrMRsN ?;,ftt1ff co URT ' ARKANSAS f JUL 3 0 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . JUL 1 r 2~n2 l a_ OFFICEOF 90ESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTE~I;:~c6ii s~NS~:MES w. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO.-4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DEP CLE~K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order of July 18, 2002 which was faxed to us at the end of the business day, yesterday, July 18, 2002. On the day before, July 1 7, 2002, plaintiffs counsel filed a letter with the Comi by fax, also at the end of the business day, wherein counsel made several objections citing authority for one. The Joshua Intervenors were not afforded an opportunity to respond prior to the Court's Order. The Joshua Intervenors, therefore, object to the Court's entry of an Order on a disputed matter without their having been afforded a reasonable response time to the plaintiffs motion. We note that there are only 30 minutes of rebuttal testimony and evidence at issue here. Joshua notes that the positions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) have been considered vital in the previous deliberations during fact finding proceedings. In the past, the Court Itself has invited the ODM to state its findings on matters which it had monitored. That has been the established procedure in this case for its duration. Joshua counsel acknowledges that the transition from one judge to another will result in some changes in the administration of a case; but Joshua believes that it is fundamental that the role of the ODM be preserved not only in operation but in presentation of the facts which it learns during its monitoring. Joshua proceeds now to address the reasons for the motion herein. 1) Joshua communication with Ms. Ann Marshall before June 21 , 2002 and even since then has been difficult due to personal circumstances of Ms. Marshall. Ms. Marshall's personal situation constitutes \"highly unusual circumstances.\" 2) The Leslie e-mail of July 27, 2001 to Ms. Marshall is a document which the Distiict has had for some time. There is no unfair prejudice to the plaintiff for it to be used by Ms. Marshall during her testimony. We submit that the Court's ruling should be reconsidered because it simply identifies ODM documents. 3) The Court excludes the ODM \"Report on the Little Rock School Districts Preparation for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Report.\" We note that this report is already a pait of the Court's record. It was filed when it was prepared. Please note the file mark of August 1 1, 1999. The cover sheet was submitted simply for reference by Joshua because the Court already has the entire report. I presume, but apologize for presuming, that the Court was aware that this report was already a pait of the record. [See Par. 5, infra.] 4) The Bonnie Leslie letter of February 21 , 2000 has also been excluded by the Court. We object to the Court's ruling for the reason, supra. The District contends that ODM participated in the evaluations that it made. The letter of February 21, 2000 shows that Leslie invited \"feedback for improvement\" or questions regarding the certain curriculum documents rather than for \"evaluations.\" We request that we at least be allowed to proffer the document with a note that Ms. Marshall may surely testify about the contents therein. 5) The Court excluded the ODM Report of August 26, 1999. This, too, has been filed as a matter of record in this case since August 26, 1999. It is not a new exhibit. The Court has had this exhibit before it now for almost three years. I ask the Court to reconsider its exclusionary ruling because the effect of it is to remove an admitted document from the record. [Underlining added for emphasis.] 6) Finally, with respect to the identified testimony of school board members, the Court precludes all but the testimony of Dr. Mitchell at lines 13-27 on p. 27. We feel that the Court should reconsider this ruling because an issue of good faith is also raised with respect to the issues which were before the Court in the first proceeding. For example, Dr. Carnine testified regarding the subjects in issue. His credibility was a clear issue. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Strickland were asked questions regarding Dr. Carnine's truthfulness to them as board members. We are entitled to show that either they did not consider him credible or that they would falsify a response themselves rather than give a statement of their experiences with Carnine regarding Carnine's truthfulness. Carnine's truthfulness goes to the District's good faith and to the integrity of the evidence recited in the reports prepared under Carnine's supervision in March of 2000 and 2001. Also, please note, Judge Wilson, that the school board members depositions were taken after we had basically concluded our case on those issues before the Court. We could not have presented it during our case-in-chief because it was not then available. Furthermore, the depositions were before the Court as exhibits before the June 21, 2002 deadline for filing exhibits. The cited lines relate to the issue of good faith with respect to good faith, discipline, student achievement and program evaluations. In conclusion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order and to modify it accordingly. Joshua also requests that if the Court is inclined to make an instantaneous ruling on a motion by the District that the Cow1 afford Joshua reasonable time to respond before entering an Order. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 . r, AR Bar No. 64046 ' JOHNW. WALK.ER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Rickey Hicks, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 7 4-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoin/ ~.ha been \"},:,lf and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this day of I  , 2002: I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis R. Hansen FRlDAY, 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 \\\\TRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 rvir. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 JUL 2 2 2002 A OFACEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * .I)ISTRICTNO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER u.fo1{fm~cRRr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 :e 2002 i;,~~-1-r I have reviewed Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the July 18, 2002 order excluding - certain documents Joshua recently identified as exhibits for use with their rebuttal witnesses. First, Joshua points out that the Court entered its order without allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond to LRSD's letter requesting the exclusion of those exhibits. While the Court normally allows opposing counsel an opportunity to respond to an issue before ruling, in this case Joshua had clearly violated the Court's May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order that explicitly required Joshua to identify all exhibits they intended to use during the July 22, 2002 hearing -- on or before June 21 , 2002. In light of that undisputed fact, which was the basis for my exclusion of those proposed exhibits, I saw ( and see) no reason for allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond. Second, Joshua points out that a number of the documents have previously been filed in the record. I was fully aware of that fact at the time I entered my order. However, merely because a - --- - - - - - ---- - ---- document has been filed in the record does not excuse Joshua from complying with the May 15 Scheduling Order. It explicitly required them to pre-mark and exchange with opposing counselall exhibits that it intended to use during the July 22 hearing. Under Joshua's interpretation of the May 15 Scheduling Order, they would be permitted to use, as rebuttal exhibits, any of the thousands upon thousands of documents that have been filed in this case during the last two or three years without identifying and exchange those documents with opposing counsel (marked as exhibits) -- as required by this order. Finally, in connection with the excluded deposition testimony, Joshua has construed the remaining issue of \"good faith\" in far too broad a context. The only good faith issue that remains to be tried in this case is LRSD's substantial compliance with its obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advance placement courses, and guidance counseling. To the extent that Joshua desired to use this deposition testimony, which was known to them before the conclusion of the November 19, 2001 hearing, Joshua should have submitted that testimony as part of its case in chief. Since the trial date is upon us, if either side files a motion, at this late hour, an instantaneous ruling is likely if the motion or request is patently meritorious, as it was in this case. For both parties: The chute is about to open -- get your best hold. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 19th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE o';~9J~J.~; ~~~,o:~ 2 U/f!i;{ [~ U. S. DISTRICT JU~~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRA TE JUDGE J 600 WEST CAPITOL R  THOMAS RAY , OOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 2 2002 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FROM: \\,..I ~ ,_r\\ - ~ '\\! N't\\ . \\'\\. ~ ' :s Q(\\ FAX No: ~7 4 - L\\ \\ 'o7 / \"3 7lo-2\\47 DA7E: ~ \"'-\\Q 2\\/ 200 2 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: ~ ~\\~ '2..2. \\\\~r\\\"A \\..~bb \"' ~ '-s s.:h  No. Ac. ezcv O0 7 _ 2. 7 - D L-- J s,~ PAGES: {ji_JJ,/\\. ~~: } ~vn1.12 J N-'/;\" ~ ,zf:;u- lf!J,V; O-A,J) ~I\\ 1), ~ /_,M-.(,;_p f-t\u0026amp;.w-J!{ 1M.e_ u,_/,,c6i (\\_ ~~ i~!J)_ 1 ~ ,vy\u0026amp;,.~r (a~ tt%/J  ,~A.Vi.,i,\"-'i.t..J J,f.#.,T waf k lJ.bl} tf--l-L/v4J / ,u. ' ~ 1 ,y-JrJ-i {}/wv1.-' 06V1.,l7f-fQ1::;1 . ri 1~. ~ l\u0026lt;.c ~i!l l,vll~ X C : \\../.C1' / ~ 4--(/--r,~ f\u0026lt;-J-,t 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE RECEIVED FROM: 'N~-\"- 'v-J :\\s ~ JUL 2 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING -FAX ;:.o, 0\\ 4- 4\\~7 / ~llo-Z I '\\7 RE: ~ ::--~ - ?~;- F\"!L %fR1 g,srR,~ D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~T ,srR,cr ~/!:J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA~. JUL 2 3 2i sAs WESTERN DIVISION s;MEs w M 'OJ2  ccoRMAc K, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PL V. LR-C-82-866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING AS REVISED JULY 23, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22, 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimony: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan  2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American emollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study conducted by Page 1 of 7 a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by African-American students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of AfricanAmerican students who did not participate; discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK- 12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on \"Advanced Placement Courses\" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001 - the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's \"Call for Action in Education,\" and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer other testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 2 of 7 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan  2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, IBA, IBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl , JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan  2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of AfricanAmerican students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the 1999-2000 school year; that a 1999- 2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African- - American teachers thought that activities were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 1 :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, IBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with Page 3 of 7 their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarship opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a - good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11 and 2.11. 1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the District. Ms. Page 4 of 7 Mitchell may offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 5. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses, that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua Jntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors appeared on July 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect Page 5 of 7 that Joy Springer appeared on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua Intervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan  8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement - courses; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Respectfully    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_1739","title":"District Court, plaintiff's reply brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, plaintiff's motion for protective order and for emergency hearing.","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":["2002-06-02/2002-06-28"],"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","School integration","School districts","Little Rock School District","African Americans--Education","School discipline","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, plaintiff's reply brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, plaintiff's motion for protective order and for emergency hearing."],"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/1739"],"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":["116 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\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    Hl::,RSCHEL H. PRIDAY ( 1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. )A. BUTTRY, P.A. FR KS. URSERY, P.A. OS DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAM . CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM Ill. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCK..LIPP NISBET, JR .. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR .. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill , P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR .. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J , LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARONER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. OAVlD 0 . WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Attention: Linda Bryant Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Linda: FRJDA Y ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE . SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-  811 TELEPHONE  79 - 695-2011 FAX 479-695-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-7622898 FAX 870-762-2918 June 12, 2002 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JON ANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. FRANC. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL MICHAELE. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN RECEIVED JUN 1 ~ 2002 OFFICE OF DESEBREGATIOII MONITORING BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH o t cOUNSEL D.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. A.O. MCALLISTER CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1509 FAX 501-244-534  heller@fec .net As you requested in our phone conversation of today, I have enclosed a copy of Plaintiffs Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status reflecting a filing date of June 7, 2002. I have handwritten a corrected date of service on the last page. /bk Enc. Sincerely, ~ Brenda Kampman, Legal Assistant for Christopher Heller ,. -  E.~,~::- . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUN 1 3 2002 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS I. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. A. Revised Plan 2.12.2. 2. I 2.2: LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Revised Plan was approved by Judge Wright on the joint motion of the LRSD and Joshua on April 10, 1998. Over three years later, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") objected to the LRSD being granted unitary status. In their objections filed June 25, 2001 , Joshua made no reference to Revised Plan 2.12.2. Yet, Joshua now argues that 2.12.2 obligated the LRSD to investigate, reduce and/or eliminate the racial disparity in discipline and achievement. This argument should be rejected as untimely, inconsistent with the plain language of 2.12.2 and contrary to the interpretation given  2.12.2 by the parties during the term of the Revised Plan. Joshua's argument is untimely because they raised no objection to the LRSD's compliance with 2.12.2 in their objections filed June 25, 2001 . Joshua's argument is also inconsistent with the plain language of 2.12.2 which limits application of the provision to \"programs and activities.\" Discipline and achievement cannot fairly be construed as \"programs\" or \"activities.\" ' .'!SAS ~-.:..:... Finally, neither the LRSD nor Joshua interpreted  2.12.2 as requiring investigation of the - racial disparities in discipline and achievement during the term of the Revised Plan. See AMI Civil 41\\ 3015 (Supp. 200l)(\"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.\"). The LRSD's obligations with regard to discipline and achievement were specifically set forth in 2.5 and 2.7, respectively. Those sections set forth Joshua's entire \"remedy\" relat~d to discipline and achievement issues. Revised Plan  2.12.2 was intended to address racial disparities \"in programs and activities\" which might arise but were not otherwise covered by the Revised Plan. See AMI Civil 41\\ 3021 (Supp. 2001)(\"If there is a contradiction between general provisions and more detailed, specific provisions, the specific provisions ordinarily qualify the meaning of the general provisions.\"). Joshua's current interpretation of 2.12.2 was never brought to the attention of the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Joshua knew no later than March of2000 that the LRSD was not \"investigating\" the racial disparity in discipline and achievement. Joshua's silence - precludes it from arguing for a contrary interpretation after complete performance by the LRSD. See Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142, 1144-45 (6th Cir. 1997)(recognizing a district court's jurisdiction to consider whether the equitable principle of estoppel has altered a parties obligations and duties under a consent decree); U.S. v. City of Fort Smith, 760 F.2d 231 , 233-34 (8th Cir. 1985)(\"We note that, for purposes of enforcement, consent decrees are to be construed as contracts.\"); Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349,355, 990 S.W.2d 581 , 585 (1999)(\"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 2 suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the - breach.\"). In fact, Joshua's belated assertion that 2.12.2 applied to the racial disparity in discipline and achievement represents an effort by Joshua to shed the burden of proof they accepted in Revised Plan  11. Joshua clearly failed to meet their burden of establishing that the current racial disparities in discipline and achievement resulted from discrimination by the LRSD. Recognizing this failure, Joshua argues that  2.12.2 obligated the LRSD to determine the cause of these disparities. For the reasons set forth above, this argument is without merit. Discipline and achievement are not \"programs\" or \"activities.\" Consequently, Revised Plan 2.12.2 is irrelevant to the LRSD's compliance with Revised Plan 2.5 and 2.7. A. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. 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. Joshua argues that \"[t]he LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy [the] achievement disparity between black and white pupils.\" Joshua's Response, p. 52. This is not true. The LRSD implemented programs designed to improve and remediate AfricanAmerican achievement, as required by the Revised Plan. Dr. Carnine testified as follows: Q. I see. Did you adopt a single program by which to narrow the achievement gap between black -- the academic achievement between black and white students, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement which we signed? A single program, Doctor, one program, did you do that? A. Ifl may, I am going to say yes, because I believe ultimately ifwe remediate achievement, that the gap will, in fact, close. Tr. July 6, 2001, p. 378. Dr. Camine's response can be best understood when considered in light of the Court's comments which immediately preceded it. As in their Response, Joshua insisted at the hearing of talking about reducing the disparity, rather than improving African-American achievement. 3 Judge Wright interrupted Joshua's cross-examination of Dr. Carnine when counsel for Joshua - refused to recognize the distinction and stated: THE COURT: All right. I want to just again, and I don't want you to - I don't want you to get into an argument with him. But this witness takes the position that there is a difference between raising the achievement level of minority students and closing the disparity - the achievement gap. MR. W Al.KER: I understand, and that - THE COURT: And in his defense, I am not trying to take his side in this matter, I am trying to be a fair Judge, but in his defense, Section 2.7 of this plan requires the District to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" . . .. And so, what he is going to testify -- what he wants to testify to is not reducing the disparity, but increasing African-American achievement. And I am going to -- based on the language of the plan, I am going to let him stick to that. MR. WALKER: That's fine. Tr. July 6, 2001, pp. 376-77. Despite Judge Wright's admonishment, counsel for Joshua continued to question Dr. Carnine about the \"achievement gap,\" leading to Dr. Camine's testimony that improving African-American achievement should narrow the racial disparity in - achievement. Dr. Carnine testified that the Revised Plan's approach to reducing the racial disparity in achievement was to implement programs designed to improve African-American achievement. Tr. July 6, 2001, pp. 450-52. Dr. Carnine further testified that Joshua accepted that approach when they agreed to the Revised Plan. Tr. July 6, 2001, p. 452. The parties' joint brief seeking approval of the Revised Plan supports Dr. Carnine's testimony. In that brief, the parties stated, \"With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving AfricanAmerican achievement.\" See Docket No. 3108, p. 2 ( emphasis supplied). Therefore, there is no merit to Joshua's argument that the LRSD did not implement programs designed to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement. The LRSD did exactly what 4 the Revised Plan called for in that regard - it implemented programs designed to improve and - remediate African-American achievement. Joshua also argues that \"implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by [the] LRSD .... \" Joshua's Response, p. 51. To support this argument, Joshua primarily relies on the LRSD's Interim Report and Final Report which detail the implementation status of the District's comprehensive curriculum reforms. Joshua's argument fails to recognize that implementation of new curriculum programs is a process, not an event. Joshua's argument suggests that the Revised Plan required everything to be implemented on day one. If Joshua really believed this, they should have objected no later than when the LRSD filed its Interim Report, on which they rely heavily in their Response. They never objected to the status of the LRSD's implementation during the Revised Plan's term and should be estopped from objecting after the LRSD has completed performance. See Waste Management, City of Fort Smith, Bharodia and Stephens, Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  - 2.7. See Revised Plan,  11. To meet this burden based on the racial disparity in achievement required that Joshua come forward with evidence that the disparity resulted from the LRSD's noncompliance, rather than other factors. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (7th Cir. 2001 ). In their Response, Joshua does not even argue that they met this burden. Rather, Joshua argues that Revised Plan  2.12.2 placed the burden on the LRSD to determine the cause of the racial disparity in achievement and implement a remedy. For the reasons discussed above, that argument is wholly without merit. The LRSD agreed to implement programs, policies and procedures designed to improve African-American achievement, and it has done so. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision in the area of student achievement. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)(\"Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the 5 case, can be an important step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and - control of schools to local authorities.\"). B. Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 : Program Assessment. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving AfricanAmerican achievement. If this assessment reveals 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. Joshua's Response on this issue begins by misstating the LRSD's position. The LRSD does not contend that all it had to do to comply with  2. 7 .1 was administer annual assessments to students. That was step one in a two step process. The second step was using the assessment data \"to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement.\" See Revised Plan, 2.7.1. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 246. The LRSD did this, and Dr. Lesley provided the Court with several examples of program changes made by the LRSD based on the annual assessment data. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 247-75. - The distinction to be made is between an informal evaluation made using the annual assessment data and a formal, written program evaluation. The LRSD did both, although 2.7.1 only required the former. The formal, written program evaluations conducted pursuant to the Revised Plan were referred to as the Board-adopted Research Agenda. See Interim Report, p. 53. Joshua's outline of the various documents detailing the LRSD's efforts to comply with 2. 7. I completely ignores ODM's August 11, 1999 monitoring report. Joshua knew or should have known upon publication of that report that the LRSD did not intend to prepare a formal program evaluation every year for every program in the District affecting African-American achievement; yet, Joshua raised no objection. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 370-71; Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11, 1999, p. 43. The LRSD's March 2000 Interim Report again detailed the LRSD's plans for complying with 2.7.1. Again, Joshua raised no objection. If 6 Joshua believed the LRSD had an obligation to do more, then Joshua had an obligation to put the - LRSD on notice of that belief. Since they did not, they are estopped arguing that what the LRSD did was not enough. See Waste Management, City of Fort Smith, Bharodia and Stephens, supra. The LRSD substantially complied with Revised Plan 2.7.1, and accordingly, should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard thereto. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. C. Revised Plan  2.5 - 2.5.4: Student Discipline. Joshua concedes that \"(t]here is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 of the revised plan.\" Joshua focuses its attack on Revised Plan 2.5 and 2.5.4. Each of these sections will be discussed in tum below. 1. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.5. See Revised Plan,  11. To meet this burden based on the racial disparity in discipline required that Joshua come forward with evidence that the disparity resulted from systematic discrimination by the LRSD's in the imposition of discipline. See People Who Care, 246 F.3d at 1076-77 (achievement disparity). In their Response, Joshua does not even argue that they met this burden. Rather, Joshua argues that Revised Plan 2.12.2 placed the burden on the LRSD to determine the cause of the racial disparity in discipline and implement a remedy. For the reasons discussed above, that argument is wholly without merit. Joshua came forward with no evidence ofracial discrimination by the LRSD, and accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan 2.5. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. Joshua takes out of context Dr. Linda Watson's testimony concerning the ODM's June 14, 2000, monitoring report on student discipline. See CX 583. Joshua would have this Court believe that the District and Dr. Watson completely ignored the report. While it is true that 7 Superintendent Carnine instructed Dr. Watson not to prepare a formal response to the report, Tr. - Nov. 19, 2001, p. 178, Dr. Watson explained in her testimony what the District did to address each ofODM's recommendations. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 85-102. Even if the LRSD had completely ignored the report, the Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to implement ODM's recommendations, and the report itself merely describes the recommendations as \"suggestions.\" ex 583, p. 121. 2. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Joshua's argues that the District failed to meet its obligation under Revised Plan 2.5.4 based on evidence that the District did not maintain a document compiling the total number of behavior modification plans developed and that the District did not prepare a document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" The Revised Plan required neither. Joshua bore the burden of proof. See Revised Plan  11. There was no evidence that any student who needed a behavior modification plan did not get one. Dr. Watson testified that she reversed - suspensions and sent students back to school to do a behavior modification plans when necessary. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 136. The fact that the LRSD did not keep a list of all students with behavior modification plans falls far short of establishing noncompliance with  2.5.4. Therefore, the LRSD should be declared unitary with regard to student discipline. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. D. Conclusion. Joshua concludes its discipline argument with the statement that \"Dr. Watson had a vast array of responsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be expected to accomplish.\" Joshua's Brief, p. 15. What Joshua fails to comprehend is that this could just as easily be said about most of the District's administrators, principals and teachers. The LRSD agrees that there were things it could have done better. It said as much in both the Interim Report and Final Report. While the LRSD strives for perfection, that is not the legal standard. See Belk v. 8 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not - to say that CMS is a perfect school system - it is not.\"). The issue before this Court is whether the LRSD Board of Directors can be trusted comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). Joshua came forward with no evidence that they could not, and as a result, the LRSD is entitled to an order granting unitary status in accordance with Revised Plan  11. II. Summary Judgment. The LRSD moved for summary judgment with regard to those Revised Plan sections which were timely challenged by Joshua but which have not yet been litigated. The summary judgment process may be used to terminate a consent decree without an evidentiary hearing. See Cody, 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Summary judgment is appropriate when the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is - entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,323 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of identifying those parts of the record which demonstrate absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The LRSD met its burden by pointing out that there is no evidence of noncompliance sufficient to cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody, 139 F.3d at 1199. This shifted the burden to Joshua to come forward with such evidence. See Matushita Blee. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 (1989). Joshua failed to meet their burden. Moreover, Joshua's failure to controvert the LRSD's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute means that those facts are deemed admitted. See Rule 56. l(c) of the Rules for the 9 United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Based on those - facts, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment with regard to all remaining issues. Joshua does not even purport to respond to the LRSD's motion for summary judgment. Rather, Joshua notes that the Court has already scheduled a hearing on the remaining Revised Plan sections to be litigated - as if this negated the need for them to respond. The summary judgment process is designed to determine whether a factual dispute exists which requires an' evidentiary hearing. Joshua failed to come forward with evidence establishing a factual dispute, and therefore, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRlDA 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 Mareh 15, 2002: ~ '1 ~o1);)-. Mr. John W. Walker J- J JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 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 (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 11 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION 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 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JUN 11 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNIT ARY STATUS I. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. A. Revised Plan  2.12.2. 2.12.2: LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. The Revised Plan was approved by Judge Wright on the joint motion of the LRSD and Joshua on April 10, 1998. Over three years later, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") objected to the LRSD being granted unitary status. In their objections filed June 25, 2001, Joshua made no reference to Revised Plan 2.12.2. Yet, Joshua now argues that 2.12.2 obligated the LRSD to investigate, reduce and/or eliminate the racial disparity in discipline and achievement. This argument should be rejected as untimely, inconsistent with the plain language of 2.12.2 and contrary to the interpretation given 2.12.2 by the parties during the term of the Revised Plan. Joshua's argument is untimely because they raised no objection to the LRSD's compliance with 2.12.2 in their objections filed June 25, 2001. Joshua's argument is also inconsistent with the plain language of 2.12.2 which limits application of the provision to \"programs and activities.\" Discipline and achievement cannot fairly be construed as \"programs\" or \"activities.\" Finally, neither the LRSD nor Joshua interpreted 2.12.2 as requiring investigation of the - racial disparities in discipline and achievement during the term of the Revised Plan. 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.\"). The LRSD's obligations with regard to discipline and achievement were specifically set forth in 2.5 and 2.7, respectively. Those sections set forth Joshua's entire \"remedy\" related to discipline and achievement issues. Revised Plan 2.12.2 was intended to address racial disparities \"in programs and activities\" which might arise but were not otherwise covered by the Revised Plan. See AMI Civil 41\\ 3021 (Supp. 2001)(\"Ifthere is a contradiction between general provisions and more detailed, specific provisions, the specific provisions ordinarily qualify the meaning of the general provisions.\"). Joshua's current interpretation of 2.12.2 was never brought to the attention of the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Joshua knew no later than March of2000 that the LRSD was not \"investigating\" the racial disparity in discipline and achievement. Joshua's silence - precludes it from arguing for a contrary interpretation after complete performance by the LRSD. See Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 132 F.3d 1142, 1144-45 (6th Cir. l 997)(recognizing a district court's jurisdiction to consider whether the equitable principle of estoppel has altered a parties obligations and duties under a consent decree); U.S. v. City of Fort Smith, 760 F.2d 231, 233-34 (8th Cir. 1985)(\"We note that, for purposes of enforcement, consent decrees are to be construed as contracts.\"); Bharodia v. Pledger, 66 Ark. App. 349,355, 990 S.W.2d 581,585 (1999)(\"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 2 suffers the other party to continue in performance thereof, waives the right to insist on the - breach.\"). In fact, Joshua's belated assertion that 2.12.2 applied to the racial disparity in discipline and achievement represents an effort by Joshua to shed the burden of proof they accepted in Revised Plan  11. Joshua clearly failed to meet their burden of establishing that the current racial disparities in discipline and achievement resulted from discrimination by the LRSD. Recognizing this failure, Joshua argues that 2.12.2 obligated the LRSD to determine the cause of these disparities. For the reasons set forth above, this argument is without merit. Discipline and achievement are not \"programs\" or \"activities.\" Consequently, Revised Plan 2.12.2 is irrelevant to the LRSD's compliance with Revised Plan 2.5 and 2.7. A. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. 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. Joshua argues that \"[t]he LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy [the] achievement disparity between black and white pupils.\" Joshua's Response, p. 52. This is not true. The LRSD implemented programs designed to improve and remediate AfricanAmerican achievement, as required by the Revised Plan. Dr. Carnine testified as follows: Q. I see. Did you adopt a single program by which to narrow the achievement gap between black -- the academic achievement between black and white students, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement which we signed? A single program, Doctor, one program, did you do that? A. If I may, I am going to say yes, because I believe ultimately if we remediate achievement, that the gap will, in fact, close. Tr. July 6, 2001, p. 378. Dr. Carnine's response can be best understood when considered in light of the Court's comments which immediately preceded it. As in their Response, Joshua insisted at the hearing of talking about reducing the disparity, rather than improving African-American achievement. 3 Judge Wright interrupted Joshua's cross-examination of Dr. Carnine when counsel for Joshua - refused to recognize the distinction and stated: THE COURT: All right. I want to just again, and I don't want you to - I don't want you to get into an argument with him. But this witness takes the  position that there is a difference between raising the achievement level of minority students and closing the disparity- the achievement gap. MR. WALKER: I understand, and that - THE COURT: And in his defense, I am not trying to take his side in this matter, I am trying to be a fair Judge, but in his defense, Section 2.7 ofthis plan requires the District to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" .. . . And so, what he is going to testify-- what he wants to testify to is not reducing the disparity, but increasing African-American achievement. And I am going to -- based on the language of the plan, I am going to let him stick to that. MR. WALKER: That's fine. Tr. July 6, 2001, pp. 376-77. Despite Judge Wright's admonishment, counsel for Joshua continued to question Dr. Carnine about the \"achievement gap,\" leading to Dr. Carnine's testimony that improving African-American achievement should narrow the racial disparity in - achievement. Dr. Carnine testified that the Revised Plan's approach to reducing the racial disparity in achievement was to implement programs designed to improve African-American achievement. Tr. July 6, 2001, pp. 450-52. Dr. Carnine further testified that Joshua accepted that approach when they agreed to the Revised Plan. Tr. July 6, 2001, p. 452. The parties' joint brief seeking approval of the Revised Plan supports Dr. Carnine's testimony. In that brief, the parties stated, \"With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving AfricanAmerican achievement.\" See Docket No. 3108, p. 2 ( emphasis supplied). Therefore, there is no merit to Joshua's argument that the LRSD did not implement programs designed to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement. The LRSD did exactly what 4 the Revised Plan called for in that regard - it implemented programs designed to improve and remediate African-American achievement. Joshua also argues that \"implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by [the] LRSD ... . \" Joshua's Response, p. 51 . To support this argument, Joshua primarily relies on the LRSD's Interim Report and Final Report which detail the implementation status of the District's comprehensive curriculum reforms. Joshua's argument fails to recognize that implementation of new curriculum programs is a process, not an event. Joshua's argument suggests that the Revised Plan required everything to be implemented on day one. If Joshua really believed this, they should have objected no later than when the LRSD filed its Interim Report, on which they rely heavily in their Response. They never objected to the status of the LRSD's implementation during the Revised Plan's term and should be estopped from objecting after the LRSD has completed performance. See Waste Management, City of Fort Smith, Bharodia and Stephens, supra. Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  - 2.7. See Revised Plan, 11. To meet this burden based on the racial disparity in achievement required that Joshua come forward with evidence that the disparity resulted from the LRSD's noncompliance, rather than other factors. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (7th Cir. 2001). In their Response, Joshua does not even argue that they met this burden. Rather, Joshua argues that Revised Plan  2.12.2 placed the burden on the LRSD to determine the cause of the racial disparity in achievement and implement a remedy. For the reasons discussed above, that argument is wholly without merit. The LRSD agreed to implement programs, policies and procedures designed to improve African-American achievement, and it has done so. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision in the area of student achievement. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)(\"Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the 5 case, can be an important step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and - control of schools to local authorities.\"). B. Revised Plan  2. 7 .1 : Program Assessment. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving AfricanAmerican achievement. If this assessment reveals 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. Joshua's Response on this issue begins by misstating the LRSD's position. The LRSD does not contend that all it had to do to comply with  2. 7 .1 was administer annual assessments to students. That was step one in a two step process. The second step was using the assessment data \"to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement.\" See Revised Plan,  2.7.1. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 246. The LRSD did this, and Dr. Lesley provided the Court with several examples of program changes made by the LRSD based on the annual assessment data. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 247-75 . - The distinction to be made is between an informal evaluation made using the annual assessment data and a formal, written program evaluation. The LRSD did both, although  2. 7 .1 only required the former. The formal, written program evaluations conducted pursuant to the Revised Plan were referred to as the Board-adopted Research Agenda. See Interim Report, p. 53. Joshua's outline of the various documents detailing the LRSD's efforts to comply with  2.7.1 completely ignores ODM's August 11 , 1999 monitoring report. Joshua knew or should have known upon publication of that report that the LRSD did not intend to prepare a formal program evaluation every year for every program in the District affecting African-American achievement; yet, Joshua raised no objection. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 370-71 ; Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11, 1999, p. 43. The LRSD's March 2000 Interim Report again detailed the LRSD's plans for complying with 2.7.1. Again, Joshua raised no objection. If 6 Joshua believed the LRSD had an obligation to do more, then Joshua had an obligation to put the - LRSD on notice of that belief. Since they did not, they are estopped arguing that what the LRSD did was not enough. See Waste Management, City of Fort Smith, Bharodia and Stephens, supra. The LRSD substantially complied with Revised Plan  2. 7 .1, and accordingly, should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard thereto. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. C. Revised Plan 2.5 - 2.5.4: Student Discipline. Joshua concedes that \"[t]here is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 of the revised plan.\" Joshua focuses its attack on Revised Plan 2.5 and 2.5.4. Each of these sections will be discussed in turn below. 1. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan 2.5. See Revised Plan,  11. To meet this burden based on the racial disparity in discipline required that Joshua come forward with evidence that the disparity resulted from systematic discrimination by the LRSD's in the imposition of discipline. See People Who Care, 246 F.3d at 1076-77 (achievement disparity). In their Response, Joshua does not even argue that they met this burden. Rather, Joshua argues that Revised Plan  2.12.2 placed the burden on the LRSD to determine the cause of the racial disparity in discipline and implement a remedy. For the reasons discussed above, that argument is wholly without merit. Joshua came forward with no evidence ofracial discrimination by the LRSD, and accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan 2.5. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. Joshua takes out of context Dr. Linda Watson's testimony concerning the OD M's June 14, 2000, monitoring report on student discipline. See CX 583. Joshua would have this Court believe that the District and Dr. Watson completely ignored the report. While it is true that 7 Superintendent Carnine instructed Dr. Watson not to prepare a formal response to the report, Tr. - Nov. 19, 2001 , p. 178, Dr. Watson explained in her testimony what the District did to address each ofODM's recommendations. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 85-102. Even if the LRSD had completely ignored the report, the Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to implement ODM's recommendations, and the report itself merely describes the recommendations as \"suggestions.\" ex 583, p. 121. 2. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Joshua's argues that the District failed to meet its obligation under Revised Plan 2.5.4 based on evidence that the District did not maintain a document compiling the total number of behavior modification plans developed and that the District did not prepare a document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" The Revised Plan required neither. Joshua bore the burden of proof. See Revised Plan 11. There was no evidence that any student who needed a behavior modification plan did not get one. Dr. Watson testified that she reversed - suspensions and sent students back to school to do a behavior modification plans when necessary. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 136. The fact that the LRSD did not keep a list of all students with behavior modification plans falls far short of establishing noncompliance with 2.5.4. Therefore, the LRSD should be declared unitary with regard to student discipline. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. D. Conclusion. Joshua concludes its discipline argument with the statement that \"Dr. Watson had a vast array ofresponsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be expected to accomplish.\" Joshua's Brief, p. 15. What Joshua fails to comprehend is that this could just as easily be said about most of the District's administrators, principals and teachers. The LRSD agrees that there were things it could have done better. It said as much in both the Interim Report and Final Report. While the LRSD strives for perfection, that is not the legal standard. See Belk v. 8 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not - to say that CMS is a perfect school system - it is not.\"). The issue before this Court is whether the LRSD Board of Directors can be trusted comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). Joshua came forward with no evidence that they could not, and as a result, the LRSD is entitled to an order granting unitary status in accordance with Revised Plan  11 . II. Summary Judgment. The LRSD moved for summary judgment with regard to those Revised Plan sections which were timely challenged by Joshua but which have not yet been litigated. The summary judgment process may be used to terminate a consent decree without an evidentiary hearing. See Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Summary judgment is appropriate when the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is - entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Com. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,323 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and of identifying those parts of the record which demonstrate absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The LRSD met its burden by pointing out that there is no evidence of noncompliance sufficient to cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody. 139 F.3d at 1199. This shifted the burden to Joshua to come forward with such evidence. See Matushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Com., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 (1989). Joshua failed to meet their burden. Moreover, Joshua's failure to controvert the LRSD's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute means that those facts are deemed admitted. See Rule 56.l(c) of the Rules for the 9 United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Based on those - facts, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment with regard to all remaining issues. Joshua does not even purport to respond to the LRSD's motion for summary judgment. Rather, Joshua notes that the Court has already scheduled a hearing on the remaining Revised Plan sections to be litigated - as if this negated the need for them to respond. The summary judgment process is designed to determine whether a factual dispute exists which requires an evidentiary hearing. Joshua failed to come forward with evidence establishing a factual dispute, and therefore, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment. 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) 376-20-1-1 -- 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 Match 15,-2002: ;;\"1\u0026lt; 1 ~Oc) 2,, Mr. John W. Walker 1 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 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 (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 11 .t'.IUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 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 KATI:IERINE KNIGIIT, ET AL PLAlNTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ANDFOREMERGENCYHEARING ~002/ 041 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (''LRSD\") for its Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing states: 1. LRSD seeks a protective order to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing - discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via the Ar.kansas Freedom of Infonnation Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25-19-110. 2. The FOIA requests submitted by or on behalf of Joshua are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Also included in Exhibit 1 are requests for information made by Joshua which did not specifically refer to the FOIA and correspondence with Joshua seeking to resolve this issue without Court intervention. 3. Joshua first sent requests for information on Joshua's counsel's letterhead signed by Joy Springer. Those requests did not mention the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. LRSD responded that the District,.would treat those requests as discovery requests pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and respond to them accordingly. Joshua then requested generally the same information in a request made pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act on the personal stationary of Ms. Springer. On information and belief, Joshua vo 1 ,:;0 1 ,:;vv,:; J.O : J4 .t'AA :\u0026gt;VJ. J'ftj ll47 t .. .lUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ~ 003 / 041 - also caused a request identical to the one submitted by Ms. Springer to be submitted by Mr. Terrence Bolden of Jacksonville, Arkansas. 3. The LRSD understood this Court's deadline of June 21, 2002 for identifying witnesses and exhibits to preclude any discovery after that date. 4. The LRSD seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26( c) precluding Joshua from submitting FOIA requests to the LRSD and from conducting any further discovery before the July 22, 2002 hearing. 5. Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery is intended to annoy, oppress and unduly burden LRSD. First, Joshua's requests are over broad. Joshua made no effort to limit its requests to the issues for the July 22, 2002 hearing. Second, the request is unreasonably cumulative. See Fed. R Civ. P. 26(b )(2)(i). Many of the documents requested have already been provided to Joshua (e.g., quarterly reports and academic award reports). Finally, the burden and expense of complying with Joshua's request outweighs any likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii). Pursuant to the Court's order of May 15, 2002, the documen~ will not be admissible at the July 22, 2002 hearing. 6. LRSD has attempted to confer 'With Joshua, but Joshua has not responded to our Jwie 26, 2002 letter seeking to resolve this issue and counsel for Joshua could not be reached by telephone on June 28, 2002. 7. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. As discussed therein, this Court has discretion to ei:tjoin Joshua's use of the FOJA to conduct discovery. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a protective order relieving the LRSD from its obligation to respond to the requests for infonnation attached hereto as Exhibit 1; precluding Joshua, or anyone acting on their behalf: from submitting additional FOIA req~ to the LRSD; precluding Joshua from conducting any further discovery in this case until the July 22, 2002 hearing; and directing Joshua to conduct all future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of 1-'.IUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK (aJ00S / 041 Civil Procedure; for an emergency hearing on this Motion; and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. 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-.zUl-,i.--- B : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on June 28, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER.P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 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. 42S W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rocle, 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 3 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 P:IHOMlal'l!Hl\u0026gt;UMUSD 2001~FOL\\+2Ul . ....i ~ 00 4/ 041 4 \u0026lt;USClll!L ff. PMlt.Y 11'11\"\"1  AM '4. $(JTT01'f, P.A. M. 21$.EMAN. /\u0026amp;.. P \"  stw.. P'.A. A., alJl'TlY., .A =aEOE:IUCX S Ut.SEI.Y. PA, JSCAI.C. CIAVlS.JI..~ r .A. 'AMG.1 C. ~II\\.. f /'I. ntON,\u0026amp;.$ t . UGG1ft, P.A. 'Offli! DWEY ,.-,.T.S01'. l'.A Al.It. 8.. IEl'M .. SIL ,..t.. ...AI.RYW. l~.1.A. \\ . WYCUJ,f'f liflSIGT. IL, r A. 1ANES ED11'AU l'lAUJS. I .A I. NUWf MALCOM. .A. IAME,S IC Slta$0N, P.A. 1ANES N , S.\\XTOM. t .4 . ' Stu:rt1c~ USSLL Ill. , ,., :IOHALO H.. AACOfrl. r .A. IU.tAM THOM.Al, ,A.:ir1'!.' P.A. UCN.-.\u0026amp;0 0 . TAT\\.Ot. f .A. 10.SEIH I . truUT, J   , f.A. IUZAIETII KOPllll\u0026lt; f,WUAY. P.A. CKIUS\"T'Of'tfU: ~ P..A.. LAUI.A Kl!JISLtY SMITH. P,,._ 101~.T ,. :,u.a. -1'.A.. rwA.M M. c-,FptN m. , .A. \u0026gt;UCHA.%1.. S MOOU. f .A. DIAf'l'C S . MAO::E'W\", P.A. W.A.LTU \"' ,aCt.1(1. P A. r..CYI,.. A. Cl.ASS, P.A. WUJ.l\"N A. 'WAOOG\u0026amp;.1.. Jk._ \u0026gt;,..._ SCOTT J. \u0026amp;.AZ\u0026lt;ASTek. P.A. l01lC11.T O DEACK. JL f ,A. J. ~e llO\"'N. P.A. JA.HES C. BAS:P.. Ja.. r .A. .....UY A. UGKT_ r A. SCOTT H. tuaea. ,_,._ GUY AL TOH w..i,e, ........ Ptuee C. CAAJ\u0026gt;H1.. P.A. TOf\\11.t. \"  JONES. I.A. c,,-..YfO D. 'fillSOPI. I .A. IEHI.EY tf. MOOK.. f .o\\. DA.VIO M. GllAl'. P.A Via Fax No. 374-4187 Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITD LIA81LITY PARTN!l'l5HII\" www.ftid3)'rirm.co'\" 2000 RfGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITO~ llTTle ROCK. ARKAN5A51220ll,.193 TElEPHQN(; 501-318-20! I ~AX .S01-37S21'7 , .. ~s NORTH FVTRA\\.l OAIVf. SUITE 1~ FAYETTl!.Vt.l~. ARKANS.\\S 72711~'611 TELEPHON'C! 17Q..HS-201' ,A.It  T .. HS0ZHT 20 NORTH FIFTM STRC~T tLYTh~VfLLE.. ARKANSAS 12315 'l'ELeP\u0026gt;\u0026lt;Or\u0026lt;f f70.71MU8 ,.;., t70-71.2...J.Ott June 26, 2002 CAIU.A CUWMl'.I..S 3PA.ffllt0Uk. \"\u0026gt;.A.. JOlctf ~ #.l.HOlEY~ JL t ,A. JO,-,,._..,.. UJZA.BETH CONIQUO. P.A It o,aUTOtHr.A. LAWS()H, P.A. rAAW C. fOCCMAJlf'. r A, otTTV J, OEMOKT. r .A. L'l\"'NDA M. JOMMSOlf. P.A. UHBW . .SMJJ'11.J'. \"- QJFPOM W, PUJNllTT, I .A. OA.Mct. L t\u0026lt;EtalNGTOH. , .A, MAltYIN L CIALDEAS JI( .COLEHAH\"111'1rnJtfl,O,Oll', a . AUJSO'tril J. C01l)rl'WEU EU.ntt owwt JASOl'I a. lfEND\u0026amp;E\u0026gt;\u0026lt; sivce a. r,a.-ru. MICHA.EL E. S:A.\"'1f'6l' ,::ELLY MU11.Ptn\" M.CQUlEN JQSUHr.MCCAY .a.LEXAtt01.A ,.__ !fl:.AN' JAY' T. fAV.L.01. M.utTJf' 4 \"-AITEN' Re: LRSD v. PCSSO Discovery Dear John: ~006/ 041 B1CY.a\u0026gt;nr, 0~ fOSUH G. NICIIOLS 108.IT T. SIICJTH \u0026amp;YAW A.. 10,..MAW TlMOTllY C. EZEl.L ? . MlQCCt,,L. A1'()._ t:.Aa.EN $ . KALIIEllltT SAIIAH \"'- COTTO\" rf'flL,.lf' A. NONTOOMJtY C.WTEtf :S. IJGGINS At.AHG. BllYAN UHDStT MIT01AM SLO~W KJtA.y\"(-,M fltl( tDDfN(:$ fOff'N f. HlSEl.fCH ,.._ I .S. CLAfUC  WILLIAM L 1'Elta.V Wf\\,1.IAM L , .. trow. JL H.T. 1.AAZnau, P.A. JOtOf C. CHOU. P.A A..0 MCAU.tl'TTA. C:,.llb$TOPkEtt HEt.lER LITTLE ROCK TEL s01 .. n, .. n,. FAX Stt-1:SJU t1t1t~f.~.t11 I am writing in an effort to resolve our dispute concerning your use of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act to conduct discovery in this case. We received several requests for infonnation from your office on your letterhead signed by Joy Springer. We responded that we would treat those requests as discovery requests pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provide the requested information in the time and manner set forth in those rules. We have now received a request from Ms. Springer on her personal stationery seeking all the previously requesled information and more pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. l feel strongly that the Freedom oflnfonnation Act should not be used to circumvent Federal Court procedures or to unduly burden the Little Rock School District as it works to prepare for the July hearing in this case. In order to resolve our dispute and avoid our having to seek relief from Judge Ray or Judge Wilson, I will agree to treat the FOI requests we received from Ms. Springer this afternoon as discovery requests pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and provide a response accordingly. Please let me know if this proposed resolution is acceptable to you. Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/bk cc: Dr. Ken James PlAINTIFF1S EXHIBIT 1 .1.-lUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK (aJ007 / 041 Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Sch~ Little Rock School District 810 West Marlcham June 26, 2002 RtcEJ\\IE!) JUN 28 2DDl SUPT'S OFFICE little RDcl; AR 72201 Deac Dr. lames; This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom oflnfonnation Act. Would you please provide for review, mspection aod copying the follo~og information: l) all files maintained by pr~OU$ superintendents in Ms. Griffin's office area on each of the District's schools for each of the last fi,,e years; 2002; 2) the minute$ and agendas of the District's compliance committee meetings since January, 3) all disaggregated data results of all school climate sutveys administered during 1hc .last iive years;  . 4) aJl academic award reports for each secondary school for each of the last :five years; years; 5) all senior rank lists by race and gender for each high school for each oft he last three 6} all school semces quarterly reports for each of the last five years; 7) all program evaluations prepared by 1he divisions of administrative services. school services and instruction for each of the last tive years; 8) all master schedule audits for each of the last five years; 9) the current swnmer school enrollment by race and gender; and 10) all minutes and agendas of the Activities Ad\\lfsory Board. May I r~iewthis information by 10:001un. on Monday, July 1., 2002. Thankyou. Sincerely, Terrence Bolden P.O. Box 5980 1acksom,lle, AR. 72076 501-985-4846 vu , .ao , ,.vv .. ..1.0 : .\u0026gt;o rAA ;iu-1. J/0 ;.: ,1 4 1 flUVAY .t::LDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK .JU'l .26.2002 1006Frl JCttl W 1-JALKER P ~ Dr. T. Kemietb.James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School Disttict 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 DearDr-.J~: FROM THE D,E SK OF JOY C Sl\"RINGER June 26, 2002 ~008/ 041 f\".1 This request is pursururt to the .Arlcamas ~ ofIDfvmration. Act. Would you please provide for review, inspection and copying 1he following mfor:mation;- I) all files maintained by previous superixrtendem:s in Ms. Griffin's office area on each of the District's .schools foe each of the last five years; 2) the minutes and age:adas of th~ District's compliance committee meetiPgs since Jamiary. 2002; 3) all di~egated ~ results of all school climate surveys adro:rnistcred dutingthe last nveyears; 4) all .academic a.'W\u0026amp;rl reports for each semndary school for each of the last :five S) all senior Imlk lists by race and gender for each high school for each of tlie w:t three years: 6) all school services quarterly reports for each of the last five years; 7) all program evalcations prepared by the dMsiOJlS of administtati.ve services, school services and insuuc.tkm for- osch of the last five years;  8) all master scbedule andm for eai:h of'the last 1ive years; 9) the cmrent summer sclmol enrollmeDt by race and gender, and IO) an mimrtes and agendas of the Activities .Advisory Beard. 1n ~rdance with the Freedom oflnformation Ad:., this infurroarltJn should be provided within tweuty.four bours. Smee I will be out of town OQ tomorrow :fbr the remainder oftbe week, I am requesting that the itlformanon be made available on Monday moroing at 11:00 a..m. 06/26/02 WED 14:01 (T.VR.\\ :'-10 9~~1 I vv , .o, -vv4 iu . Jo r.a.,. aui JIO ~i4t ~KlVAY tU\u0026gt;.IO::V~t \u0026amp; CLAJ\u0026lt;K JU'i.25,2002 10:06AM .JOI-Ii_ W W~ER p R Thank you fur ~our attention to tlJis request. , ~ ~ ~c.s~ 22osruce Lit11e ~ck., .AR 72202 Telephone- 501-372-3423 Fax - 501-374-4187 N0.463 ~009/ 041 P.2 06/26/02 WEI) 14:01 ITXIRX NO 9lll.1 I lltU\u0026lt;:ltt.L IL , lt.ii\u0026gt;A Y ('n-\") 'IIIL\\.l\"M II- Jll!'Tf\u0026gt;)I. \u0026gt;_,._ ano)I ,._ J!JJDWI. JL. , _,._ J0l.fl..ltU.. ,_..._ 1i-lll'TitY.P,A. Ola\u0026amp;. UUZJ.'I'. P.A. \u0026gt;CA\u0026amp;IL DAYI.S.JL. P.A. JAMSI' C. a,\u0026gt;.a\u0026amp;. JL. P.A. TIIONAS P. Llt042ff. \u0026gt;.,._ JOH)l l\u0026gt;~P- wnox. ,_,__ PAUl.JLIIDIIL\\llm, P.A. u.a\u0026amp;T W .  UBS.. P.A. A wY'CQ.JPP'HISBJ!T. IJII.. Jl'.A. JAIUSS mw UD IL\\MJS. , .A. J . J1Ut.Lff M\"-lCOM. f' -1\\, JAMA .N. SIMPS0\\11. t .A. 1\"\"'1:$N. S,UITO!f. P.A-J. $llltlll~ ~l!U- Ill., . .._ DOMAl.D 11. JIACOJt. t.A.. WD.1.1.AN f'BOMAJ BA.XTO. P.A.. RJ:CILU.D D. TATI.Ol.. P.A. ,osusa. RUUT.JLr.A. EUL\\.BETH ROBBoH M'UUAY. P.A. OINSTOJ'KD 101J.:u. f .A. 1.AOMNDSUTSMITILP.A. IIONkt i. SIIAin. ;_,._ WILUAMM. CaJRIIIJIJ.P.A. lGCJ:IAD. 3 . MOOU. I .A. DLUE 1. WA.CEEY~ IJ,,.. WAI.JDN.oa.m.,.A. ltE'Y!lfA.CJlASS.P.A. WJLUAN A. WA,OOU,L Jk.. t.A, $(Ott J. \\..\u0026amp;l\u0026lt;~t ..... JOJU.T 11. JEAQI. la.. P.A. J. LU aao-. \u0026gt;-4- JAMU C. IA\u0026amp;'.D. JL. P.A. Klll.Y A.. UOlff. ? . A.. scorr a. TUca.\u0026amp;. , .A. GUY ALTON' WAD.I!. ,,.A.. Pl.la C. G,UUHG\u0026amp;.. I.A. i0HlA. JI. \u0026gt;ONE.a. JA PAYJDD, \"'1U'Ofl,P.A. 181J'JU!Y K. HO(\\U. P.A. DAVIII N. CkAJ'. t.A. Ms. Joy Springer John W_ Walker, PA_ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 VIA U.S. MAIL AND FAX: RE: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Ms. Springer: .t-K.lVAY J:;LDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORHEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ..w Jr1dayllrm_eom 2000 REGIONS CENTER oo WEST CAPITOL LITTLE; ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501.378-2011 FAX $01-376-2147 :7?$ NOJltTH FlJTJtAU ORf\"'E'. avne 10, ,,.~!TTfllli.U:, AJll(AHSAS 7VOMl11 TEU!.JtOlt( fMd-z01t ,u Jt-H$-2,.7 208 KORTH JIJTM STIIUT 15LY'fttEY1\\.L,. A~AM$~$ 7ZS1$ Te~EPHONe ett-1e2-20H ,AJ\u0026lt; t7~712-z,1 June 24, 2002 374-4187 CA.Jtl.A GUJfJG:U $PADtOUll.7..A.. JORN C. n:Jl'DUY  JL. p .A. l0-IIJZAIIITII COlllC:UO. P.A. L QlIST0PHU UW$0N. P.A. n.u, C. WCI.MAN, P.A. B~ l . DMOkY, I .A. L.~J\u0026gt;A M. JOJDiSO)t. P.A. IAMQ 'W. $MrTJI', r-4- CUfPOltb W. N.IJNU.ff, f'.A.. DANIELL Jl'DaJHGTON. P..A. NAllYIML. \u0026lt;:1111.l\u0026gt;AS C.. COLEMAN WESnllOOE, It. AU.Jnt,. CO~L LUNM.OWEI$ JAS'Ot49..~ aauaa.notrE.,.L MIC'llAIU. a. ~IY' lt!U. Y MllllPKY NCQIIUN J0$~\u0026gt;17. HCMY A~OtA A- ltkAN U.Y t. TVl..Oll MAaTIN A. ~'fN'  ~010/ 041 BAYAJIW. DUU JO$Zl'IIG. N1Cli01.S IO\u0026amp;D.TT- SMlft Y A)t A, OOIINI TJMOTRYC.= \"[. MICJIZll.Z ATOR LU.El L JIAUIEll :SAllAJf N, C'OTTOJII nttur   H01'f7!iOMIJlT lll!fflf$.IUGCI?\u0026lt;$ ALAMa. aavAN LDfl\u0026gt;SEY MITCHAM Jt,.OAM DAYY....,. M. U\u0026gt;Df)HH IOIIN F. PESEIUCR orc;OV\"'ID. a.s.cuu: ..-u.J.lAlC L TEllY TU.l.JAJIII t.. 1' A.TYO'M, JW... H.Y. UJIZELEJl.. P.A. 10KIW C. EOfOI.5. P.A . A.11.MCAJ.Llnn JOHii C. ,CNOL..{V_ Jlt. Lm~E ococ TELSH~7~ FAX 511244SS41 fflldl9yOfc.-nt This letter concerns your requests for information submitted June 11 and 12, 2002. We consider these to be informal requests for discovery and have advised the District work to prepare responses within thirty days of your request. We hope you understand that preparation of responses to your requests for information can be time conswning. Giving District personnel thirty days to respond will hopefully ensure that they are not forced to neglect important District priorities. We appreciate your cooperation in this regard With regard to your request for information dated June 11, 2002 to Dr. Hurley, we are concerned that this request relates to the lawsuit .filed by Mr. Walker on behalf of Jim Mosby. It would be inappropriate for the Joshua Interveners to use their monitoring role in this case to assist individual District employees in litigation against the District. Moreover. the Joshua Intcrveners should support the District's effort to provide a certified principal for the students at Southwest Middle School, an overwhelmillgly Aftican-American school. Due to this concern, we have advised Dr. Hurley not to respond to the request until we have had an opportunity to discuss this with you. Ms. Joy Springer June 24, 2002 Page2 Please give me a call at your convenience to discuss this request. Sincerely, ~t~ Jolm C. Fendley, Jr. cc: Dr. Ken James (by fax and mail) ------ ---- ~011/ 041 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK He'I.So\u0026amp;El. K. F'lUlAY (1911.ltt4)  U~ H. SUTTON, P.A. ON N. ElS\u0026amp;MAli. ,._ P.A. D. ULL.P.A. ES A. DIJTTI.Y. P,A. fJU;OEIJCk f , Uu.t.\u0026amp;Y. r .A, OSCAaE. DAYlS. JL. P.A. JAMts e. Cl.ANt. Jll,. , .A. Til0M.S p, I.ICICP:TT. t .A. JOHN DE\"WEY WATS:OH, f.A,. , AW.. ... BDlll,Uf l1L , ..A. LA.RJt.Y W. a\\11.1tJ, P.A. ,._ '\"OUJFFll158ET. Ja., P.A. JANES EDWAID HAU.11. P.A. J. P.HIUJP MALCOM. P.A.. JAMES N. 5,UIIPSON. P.A JAM~ M. SAXTON. P.A. J, Sh!PW!G JWSSEll. UI, P.A. PO)rr,IAU) H. !ltctn't, P.A. WII.L.lAM TMOMAS BAXTER. P.A. ltlCM.A'l.t'I D. T1'Yt.O-.. 1.A.. J0.11'\u0026gt;4 II. nu-ST. Jll. P.A. EU:t-t-ATll llODDlill '4UU.AY. P,A, CHJJ!TOPHEl mUE1. I.A.. L..Wb HENlUY SWJ'TJL P.A. at08E.AT S. ZHAJ\"Ea. '-' WJIJ.IAM M. CJUm)l lll , .A. M\u0026amp;CHAll S. ll,IOOR'- F,A, l\u0026gt;LtJG: I. \u0026gt;U.CX.EV .. I.A. WALTUM. 851. JU, P.A. \"'VIN A, CA.US, P.A. Wll.l.lAW A. \\VAl)P,J!U. JI.., P./\\. SCOTT I. l..t.HCAl?P, P.A. I.OBllT B. UA(K. JI- P. A.. 1. LEE aaoww. , .,._ IANES C. Billi. 11.. P.A. MAU.YA.. UGNT, P,ASCOTT H. ruao.. p .A. mrY At.'TONWAll'E. f .A.. PJ.lct C. GARl\u0026gt;lfll.. P ,A. TlffllA P. JONU.1'. A.. OA.VID D. WILSON, P.A. J?l'FREY IL MOOll. P.A. DAVID M. GMI. I .A. FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK -.noRNEVS -.T t.AW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frloay11rm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 Wl!ST CAPITOL LITTl.E ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201353 TELEPHONE S01-376-2011 YAX 5013752147 '425 NORTH FVTRALl 0ilUVE, SUITE fH F'-YeTTev,~ce. Alll(A~SAS 1210311 T.ELEPHONE \"'71-,\u0026amp;05'-2011 F,.X 1t-t9'3-z,a7 201 NORTH FIF'TM STR,~tT ILYTHfVll,,1.E. A,t.UNSAS 72.215 TELEPHONE 870-TU-2891 FAX 17G-74!12'-1tHI June 24, 2002 [] Copy and return withP.O.T. [ J Return P.O.T. only TELECOPY TO: Joy Springer Dr. Ken James 374-4187 447-1159 FROM: John C. Fendley, Jr. MESSAGE: See the following re: LRSD vs. PCSSD. C.UA Cl/llllEU SPAl1'llOOR. P.A. JOHtl,:. PB)rlOLrr. 111... I .A. \u0026gt;OIIAl/N EUZADeTII (01'1Cco. r .A, Jl. CJWSTOPJfEI. l.A.W$0N, !'.A.. PlWf C. IOCICNAM, P.A. B~T?V J. Ou,tOltT. 1,A, L YNl)A M. )OIO'!ON, t . A. JAJWIISS 'W. SMITH. P.A. CUlpO-.i,, W, Pl.~. P.A. DAllliL 'I,. JU:JJUIIGT01', t .A. .MAAYIN L eNI.LDfflf IC. COUMAW wesn,ac\u0026gt;OI(.. ,,.. All.1!0lf l . CQl.\\l'N!U,, EU.E\u0026gt;I ... 0\\1121'$ 1AJON a. 12Nt\u0026gt;anl llt.UCE. B. Tll)W!J,,,L. MICIWtl. \"- ltAll\u0026gt;lt'f Ull Y NU11PMY MCQUUll JOUIK I . WCJC.AY ALUANDLA A. 11aJI.H JAT T. TAYLOR MARnN A. X..U:T.sN TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET _3_. IF YOU DO NOT RECENE ALL TIIE PAGES - PLEASE CALL BACK ASAP (501) 376-2011 TRANSMITTING FROM: (PLEASE CIRCLE ONE) TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFF1CE USE ONLY: AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 - (501) 376-2147 AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 - (501) 376-6369 LI23-0-90 CLIENT/MATIER# 141012/ 041 8lY AH W. DUD:: JOSEPH G. NJCROU aoanT T. SMITH kY-'\\)f A., eOWMA.Jri TIMOTHY C. EULi. T. MJCHELU.-.TOk KAJ.SJrf s. HALBD.J' SAIWI M, COTTO,, t-HlUt a. ~OJlilC~\"'r WS1EH !. .RJGGl\u0026gt;ll Al.AH G. AYAW 1..n'DiEV NrTCH.AM ~LO~ 'CRA\"YYAM M. i:mln:IC!:. JOHN f . PEISEJUCH OTCO...,.at. 'B.I. ~ WU,.UAM L T!JtKY WfUlA.M L FATTON, JL H.1, ~UIIII\u0026lt;. P.A. ,OJI)\u0026lt; C. tel10LS. P Jo. A.I). MC,.1.1.lfflk .JOHN C. FENCL.I!\\' , .IA:. LITTLE 11.0CK T\u0026amp;l. H1ITilll21 ,AX S1\u0026gt;1 -liUNt1 fe.ifley0fc.r,et CONFfDOfflAIJT)' NOTE: TM inf-01;0,,;,, lilisfoulJrtll,,_llrlJ/ iJ /~1-,pri\"\"ttei and cOftfld-'ol lwftJfflt11io,, f,i1111dld \"'\" for lilw ,,., q,,.. ldMd\"I o, .,,n,y ~ HfJW. J/!Mrmdtraf llti.s ma:rtq;r is mw ,~ ~d ripienJ. 10\" are trerd,y ,rQlijlo:J rlt4r o,u, d(IJetn(notlon, Wtrilnuioo or a,,_y qf lht: tnuumiltal U strialy proltlblted. Jf)'O't ,....;,,ethi, uruuflliJm/ ;,,,,..,, pJns, i1010\u0026lt;1Potdy-i/J,\"' f1i, 1d\u0026lt;plto,,c. .,,_,~.,,, 1J.e.,;~ VMSlltitlal to..: o\u0026lt; 1N:ebtN,11ddrcs..., Iii Uolu::dSUUc Po,10/ Suvicc. 71,anJc you. F:~\\10IIMS\\l'AXll'alef\\:prioi.,..,;.,.....,., .flUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 06/24/02 MON 11:53 FAX 3432 ********SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS *** MULTI TX/RX REPORT *** ****************************** T.l/RX NO INCOMPLETE TX/RX TRANSACTION OK (1) 93744187 ERROR MP~CNF.J.. tC. PllbA ( ,1,n1!11JI w,v; ..... ,L iunu . t-.A. DVIIOM M. C,JJIIIIJt JL 7.A. JCIUU. Ul!U..,,A. J11,,-r.,.  . U\\ffTAY. r A Clli:.Klc;:\u0026amp; J , v,:sa: ~Y. I .A. tnCAt! tJAWIJ. JI. . I A.. J\"\"f-~ C Q , fltilll\u0026lt;., , . r.A. 'l'rt(I~--$ \"  J..#JC)l!T:. .A. JOUM Dli\" WAnnw. ,.,.. PAV\\. If. UCtnlA.M m f.A. L4JUI.TW,ll\\l~P.\\.. A. w,a~lfP' Jrttt.t9E ', ,n., ,-. Jri . JAllfU CnW,ULD H!'ll:a,s, ~-\"  J. r,ow, MALCOM, \" \"  J,a.MC., ~ - :CMPJn)II, , ,.\\.. JAMU W. !;.if(IW, l'.A. J. $HUHP.R\" ldJ.ilr.J I., ut, .. ,A, OON.\\LO '9, a..OON. .,\\. \"1LU)\u0026amp; f.t(JM~ (I\\J:'f'e., r.,\\. 1.u:uaatt b . 1'11Vt.(U , , .-. JOJl'J,t JJ. ltlJM$'1', Jt, ,  A. (2) 94471159 OU~Vltnl ,_Oita! MUM.\\Y, P.A. ClllU~TOntUl.ll0J..D.i I .A. UlJM Ut1Ni1.n .s.MJTN. t .A. KOn11T 1, iMfEll. P,._ 91fll.UAM N, .C:._,fJlN JU. f ,A, MtCIIA.1. $. -.uUK.. P.A. OfANE s. wu;gy. P.A. 1114.l,,~N. lflltLut. r.A. U:YIJI I\\. :M!li, P.A WU.1..1AM A,. WAeDE'U., Ja... f'.A. S:C'O't'f I. C..ftflf'CUTEt., l',A. llOHIL1 I . lf.\u0026amp;OI. IL. P.A. I . Lt l\"JW7f. , .A. JAMA.ti ~  ._KU. JR., P  Jt,tt,kll'\"I  UC\":MT, P. 11,. u:aTT N. TIJQCJ'.a, ..... c:vv t.TON w\"ot. t .A. PD.ICF.. r.. ~DMF.X. ,  TOWIA ' . iowr;S,, )' A., l\u0026gt;AVlf1 r,, WU..fON, I\"  ltfi\"-tY n. 114(\u0026gt;(,1,.._ V.I\\. \"'\"~u, M. C\" r A , FRIDAY ELDl1EDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT I./IW A LIMITEll llABILITY P\"lliNERSHIP www.Wdarfirm.cofft 200a fttGlONS t:l:NTel't ,oo WliST CAPITOl Llr(LE ROCK. ARKAIISA$ 7:!201-393 TELEPHONE 5D1-J75-Z011 rA'/C. So1.376-2147 ~a.\u0026amp; NoltTH F\\IT1'AU C,AlVE. SUITli 111.S ,-..,fTTfv1u.c . ..,,_KA.NISA$ 1no3-   11 T!I e:P'4DNE OHt,S-2011 'AX 470.tDS..atd 291 -TH Flf'TH STllET 91.YNeVILLE, ARKANSAS. 72315 T'l,,tt\"'10NC 10-11.JJHD ,uro-nz.z.,, June 24. 2002 [ J Copy and return with P.O.T. [] RetumP.O.T. only TELECOP.Y TO: Joy Springer Dr. Ken James 374-4187 447-1159 FROM: John C. Fendley, Jr. MESSAGE: See the following re:~ vs. PCSSD. !:AM.A C\\INWl!U IMIIINOII\u0026amp;, P,A, JUffff C. fl:.\"l'IOLCi  .t'- P.A. .OMAN CUZ. ... L'TII CUNllil.lO, , ,A, J.. QfllSTOfREJl V.Wi()fl( , P. A. ~ow, C IIICCMAN. P.A. ~ltTTf J. OatOltl'. , ,,._ l,Y?IUIII 'l. JUJINSON. f.A. JI\\MU,  - n1n1L t ,h. (..\"\\,fPl\"IJa.o W. PLW)tl1T. I.A. \\\u0026gt;Af'Uli:t.. L HEJJUfilCSTON. 1.A. NhlLVIN L.. CNIUJa.$ \" C:01.D\u0026lt;A-~ WESTOIOO\u0026gt;:. JL MJ.J,SON J. COUWIU t~UNM. OWE\u0026gt;IS \"'\"'\" a. IW/l)al)I IUJCE: I . 'TtOWlJ.I, MtcHA.EL t. kAPEY 1'.ELLY MU\"INY MD)IJF.fhit JOSEftU. Ma.AV A.I.Z);.-.ND\u0026amp;A. A.. IFAA N JAYT. T.AYU,. MAkTl!II A . ..::,1,sT,.-,I TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET_3_. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE AIL THE PAGES - PLEASE CALL BACK ASAP (501) 376-2011 TRANSMITTlNG .FROM: (PLEASE CIR.CLE ONE) AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200- (501) 376-2147 AUTOMATIC FAX RAPlCOM 200 - (501} 376-6369 141013/ 041 Olll'Aflf ft, CIUltl,; J('tC~ \u0026amp;:., flllt~'\"IWLS IIIOUtltt Y. 5KITII kfAtt A. ,uwM.Ut TIMQ\"fllV L'. e:i.eu .. T. lliNC:ucu.u ATOii!. K.tketf :.. lfALOl!A.T t\u0026amp;IA'1 M, l))nUN r1nur ,. MOl'CTUOM[J.Y ~'ff7fl'Clt 4, Rlt.G1HS AlAHd. YAN 1.INNUT MJTCMAM S\\.OAM IUl.l'YTA.M-. ~oon,rr.s JOKII r. '\"JlCCU atr.s..a::na. p,J. t:\\.AU. WIIJ.'AM L TEU.T WIU.IAM L fATT'ON. JIL ILT. wUZ.1!1.llt;, M . 101\\H C. El:jfOU.. P.A. ~.l'. MCA .. ~Uf~ll. JOHN C, tE1'LC,t..(.'r, '\" LITTLE oclt Te'L H1a;iJOJ:q~ FA-~HJ44-$:J41 ........ ,a,., . ., .. FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 141014/ 041 JllN. 24.2002 4!~f't1 JPBN'1.W~ Sill. WN CHILD6 Ms. Sadie.Mitebell J\"OnN 1,4 WAI...J\u0026lt;E:R p ~ JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Affl:\u0026gt;.aNSY Atr LAvr 17.231'\\acwJwA.Y .l.mI.Z.Rocg;,ARXANSAS 72206 T~Ni (Slll) S7+-37oS PAX (501) 874-4187 Associate Supcrixltcadcnt for Scbool Services I.itde .Reck Sdlool Distria 810WcstMmbam Lin1e Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: Would you please provide the following imo.tmation: N0,44S (:J. W:11;\"\"\"_,l) All disaggregated data results ot\"all school c:liinate surveys adrninist~ d~g the 2001-.2002 school year; p I'\"; .. r..:,.,.J 2) All a.c.ademic awards reporu for eac:h secondary school f.or cac:h.oftbc wt three years; and pv-: ,,_~ f'\"' I 3) All scmor raQk lists by race and gaJder for each high school for each of the last three~. I plan to be in your buiJding on Wednesday. I will drop 1'J,' your office on this dKtc to eheck tbc status oftms mformatioa. Thank you for your attention to this request. JCS/ P .2 JOHN W. W'.ALKP Sl!Alll'N C!DI.DS Dr. T. Kenneth James Superiuteodem of Schools Little R.oc:k. School Distrlct 81 O West Markham Little Rack, AB. 72201 Dear Dr. James: JOBN W. WALKER, P.A. Anomr ATLA.W l 723 BICWJW.\u0026amp;r !.muc ~ ~ 72206 TD.BPilon (601) 37~5\u0026amp;  FAX (SO~ 81H187 Via Facsimile )W1e 24, 2002 Would you please provide for review, inspedion and copyine each of the files maintmd by pf\"e\\liogs supeimtendents .in Ms. Griffin's office area on each of~ Distric:' s sc3iools. I will be looking for. tlffiODg other thiDgs, all }'are:nt complamts, individual or group, petitions, letters or atherwi,c, for each ottbe last three years. r 11/0llld appreciate }.(s. Griffin mald.ng these files a.vailable on Wedfles\u0026lt;hy morning arou:nd 10:00 a.m. Th8llk you for your attem:ion to this request. JCS/ P.S_- f have also pxeriiously req11ested that yau provide the mi.mites ml agendas of the eompllance committee meetings since Januazy, 2002. Your cooperation. in al!o makmg these iteins available 011 Wednesdaymommg is appreciaud. 141015 / 0 41 JOHN W. WAI.ltER SR.t\\WN CHILDS Dr. Kenneth James Supermtendent of Schools Liale Rocle School District 810 West Mark.ham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. James: l-'.IUVAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK JOHN W. WALKER., P.A. A~AxLAw 1723 B!0.ADWAY I.rm.! RDCX. .AIXANaAS 'i'2206 Tw:mom: (501) 874-8758 FAX (501) 374-418'7 June 21, 2002 [4]016 / 041 OF COUNSEL ROBEl1'1' Md!ENXY, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HDDmaN RQAD um.z Boa.~ '72210 l'IIO.N11: (SOl) 372-SCS  F.Al(50l) ~ ~ mthemy~11.~ Please provide by return facsimile a copy of the petition by teachers in support of their choice for principal at Central Hi2b School Thank you. JCS/cac - --- RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2002 SUPT'S Orfh.,c J'OHNW. WAI.EE!t sHAWNCBILDS Dr. T.KezmethJames Superiute.D~ af~ols Little ltock School District 810 WestMmxbam Little Rock, All 72:201 De:arDr. James: FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AmiNB!Arrl.B 1723 BllOAlJWAY Lfm.El\\oQi ~ 72206 Tl!LmlONS (SO'Jj S7 4-3'1S8 'FAX (501) 374--4187 Via Facsimile June~ 2002 Would you please provide to me the agendas and .mi.mtt2s Qf the compliance team ::meetings since 1ammy, 20oz to present. Thank you for your CQoperation. ~i.e .. __ . - \"'lf!.springer~ Ou Beba!f of JQSbua JCS/ @017/ 041 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 86/11/2002 12:10 5013242090 .ru-1. 11.2002 10;~ JOli'f W ~ P Fl Dr. FJclmrd Hurley ~rof\u0026amp;manRt~ Lit:t.te RQck SdiooI District 810WestM.arldlam Little Rock, AR. 72201 . Dear Dr. Hurley: JOBN W. WAIXER., P.A. .M'l'ORNiYMLA.W 1723 B1IOAJ\u0026gt;\"7A!' I.mu :aoa. ABIW\u0026amp;S 12.206 ~ ~1) 874-8158 Fil (501) 874-418'1 Juue 11, 2002 14)018/ 041 PAGE 01 I m11 writing to request that you proYide to me tbe names all Distr:ict employees who hold the position of Associate Superirrteodem, ~ Supmm~ Principal. Assistant PrineiJ\u0026gt;Slt Oircctoi, Coordluator aDd Supervisor ittclucfmg their educational baclcgroand and respective certifications. Your aneuiion to thi$ tequest is ap~ r;;~ 1oy C. Springer On Behalf of Josb\\ia ]CS! 06/05/2002 16:43 501-324-2213 JOHN W. WALKER SRAWN QDLDS Ms. Sadie Mitchell l-\".IUDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK SCHJOL SERVICES JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. AlToRNEY A:r LAW 1723 BROADWAY Llnu: ROCX. ARXANsAs 72206 TuU:rHOi-r\u0026amp;(501)27+37S8 FAX {501) 374-4.187 Via Facsimile May 31, 2002 Associate Superintendent for School SCNices Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: ~0191041 PAGE: 0.::/ '. : Ot'CO!.i:-:;;~~ ROBERT McHENlI~: :: ... OONNAJ. M~Jit::-!l  8210 Hl!l\u0026lt;DERS()S ;..:;,:.: Llrn.E Roc1'; Altl\u0026lt;A\u0026gt;I!;,\\$ 7:.::.: ! PHO!\u0026lt;: (SOl) ~2-~A:lS  FAX (Ml) 372-:\u0026lt;~'. . FM.t.ii.: mchcnnd@.1'\u0026lt;0;, .~,- Would you please provide the following information to me at our meeting on June 15, 2002: l) the number ofSllldents enrolled by rac.e and gender in summer school for the current school year; 2) the elementary sites for summer school; 3) the secondary sites for summer school including middle scltool; 4) the number of students enrolled by race and gendc:r in summer ~bool fur each of the past three years: (98-99; 99-00; and 00-01) at the elementary and secondaxy levels; 5) the subjects being over during this year s summer school at the secondary level; and 6) the subjects that were offered to students during the years 1998 through 2001 at the secondary level. Would you also please identify the year round schools? Pio.ally. would you please advise whether there are discussions regarding the elimination ofEnglis.h and Math io summer school. I loo.le forward to our meeting. JWW~s 06/ 05/02 WED 16:57 fTl'./Rl NO 8636) VU / .:.0 1 .:.vv.:. .LO: JII .l\"JU. ;)UJ. JI O ~J.4 ( !-\".IUVAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Ill 0201041 11/17/95 14:52 ~IGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026amp; JENNINGS - l'O.l~ t'WVWb A~~:0-94 TU 15:45 US .DISTRICT CLERK FAX HO. l50187Z4612 P, 02 IN TU~ A'1'11 DIS'r!tlC'l' C0~.3.fYR.,  DS'J.'Dtf S'l'Jt?C'l OP .uXAH .ttit~~RkANSM JONUIOIO DIVISION AUG 3 O l994 I ~ PLADl'rtl\"t DBFUDANTS HPPMKPPI MfR OBPIB In tbi action broqht p\\lr~nt to 63 u.s.c. 5 lill, th Defendant have eou;ht a protaoti~o order (docket entry 3) attornay-olient. cowaunicationa batvn the Dafandantt and t.hai~ levyr aftd voul4 protect at.t.orny work prod\\lct troa cUscloure. The latter vo11ld inolud lawyer to lavyu r;,o-unioa.t1ona Dade for th pvpoae of p~epariq and dehndinl the intant litigation. Plaintiff ateadtatly. reita t!l entry ot uch a protective order, pointing to th ArQna .rr1edo11 o~ Intonation Ao~, Ar~- Code Ann. S a5-1,-101 at; mn- (Supp, 1H3), ~ Defendant:' ~atu H tnte of  publia 1ntit\\ltion, ancl t.ha t'aot that th Defend.ant b\u0026amp;ve INlan aua4 1A their official vall a inlivid\\lal ca~o1t1aa, and body of Arlcana~ c law asdret1inw th ron ~nd tha ubject ot Detendan~' p\u0026amp;-opoed order~ l : PLAINTIFF'S i EXHJBIT ,f 2 i .1.-.IUVAY l::LV.l{.t:;V~l:: \u0026amp; (;LAf\u0026lt;K 11/1?/95 14:52 AL'G-30-94 TUE JS:46 ~IGHT, \"LINDSEY, g, Je-a-m-GS U S [STRICT CLERK l t-0. 134 P003-1306 1 FAX HO, 15019724612 It :tni~ially, it ~~ N detU'Jlina4 which rul .. ot law the co~a:t -ho~l4 apply, . ~1 ~, \"oup~ in 14rl Di~iliJt ~o~ by  to1\"JDr stat un1veraity preidant ovor hia I f   traatment by the Board of ~uea of ~id inatitution, b tor ! rm ot rights protected ~Y tlle 1av1 nd contitut1on of th vnited state,. pur1uant ta 42 u.s,c. I 1113, f84eral law control queetion ot priv1la;e. l91Jio Y, Pqvall. 773 P.ad 191, 11, (8th Cir, HH), 99rt. denied, 6715 U,S, 111' (U86); XQY,ngblqpd y. bm, 112 1.R,P, J43 (C,D, C.l. 1985). 'l'Jlta i tn even ~hr  pendnt or euppl...ntal jvied1otion o\u0026gt;.ai.a 11 jolne4 vith  fe4aral c1u. BlntD Y, ui,n 1eaart11 Mea1ttl, 1,1 ,.a.D. 115 (S.n. %ova 1t92). Work product protection 41varaity oaae, lt0:0lr1i Y, Chiqapp  B,I, TJ:DDIPe SP 1aa F.~.D. 1$5 (B.D. Xn4. 1Pt1). 'l'he attorney-client privil~ i  an incliapenllbl tool of juatioa, and ia tro\\lftded in the tederal co,mon lw. lb ori9inll go back vell before th 1100' B4l1nt tvn1r1, Inc. . . Y, IA@Eisan All UI.QeiaSJ.on, 320 ,,ad ,1, (7th c1r. 1163). '?he benefits o~ tbe pr1v1199e, both to Cha adatniatrat1on or jutic and to the attornrcU.n~ r1t1onahip, are o abundant  to neacl no reoit:a.tion br. it 1 theretoz- held that the J10tion i GMN'l'ID  to thoH eoaaa\\U\\ioation bat\"'n attorney and glient thac . oomo under tha attornayclient 2 ta] 021/041 P.03 '  vv , .ao , ,;.vv.:. J.O ; 'i U riu.. ;:\u0026gt;UJ. JI o -' 1 4\"/ l'lUVAY .cLVKEDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 11/lF 14:!;\u0026gt;.S Wl-\u0026lt;1bHI, L.!~T .s. JCNl'HN!;;\u0026lt;:;\u0026gt; NV, .l,..;\u0026gt;\"f . 30-94 TUE 15:48 US DISTRICT Cl.RK FAX 15019724812 wvUCJ a .. llri,ll;d..JH;.IS;U..X.....J~.1.DQIILJ~~.llb....AU.~., 17 r.a.o. ,st (D.c. 111. 1111). Tha otion 1 aleo GRANT.D  to _into;-ation, letter , aorenda, andth lite .generated 3ttoral-Y work pro~~ot. HiQWQ Ye %A:il9', lat U.S. 4'5, 67 s.et. 285 (1147) r- .Kw i'WDIYllt !MUe AP, y, Pala -Ab tntxi 132 P.R.D. JOl (S.D. fl\u0026amp;. 1990). Th real ditticulty, ot course, con, in deterain1n9 vhther a 9l~an it tall within or vii.bout on ot th two p~otecte4 cate9or1es. cwnl are ~lld upon to u their aound j\\ldq111Cl1lt, and to conaUlt the court vhen and it bQne noo dispute ari  a in th CO\\lrae at dieoovry abo\\lt it- that r po aibly protected. 4 ~ord ut be 9ivan to the Arkan authoritie that have touched on tha issue of privilege and work prod~ct i~ the context ot ,oa requets. tn 11s:s::1n1m:t4qa y., ,S:ity pf Little lesk. 198 Ark. 219, 76i s.W.24 ,o, (1981), the Arkan suprua court held that the Arkan rula of the attorny client privile,a d14 not c:raate u eleaap~ion ~o the Ar~anaaa rree~oa of Intoraa.tlon A~t. The ca heavily ralid on ~, Plai~t1tr, C1tx A( l1YUy1ll9 y, Ym1rli, 304 Ark. 179, 801 s.W.2d 275 (1910), bld, inter alia. tb\u0026amp;t le9al aemoranda prpared tor the City tor 1i t1;at.1on purp0 Ver'\u0026amp; not exeapt trom the Arkan 7raedom ot .Intonw1t1on Act. Attorney vork product vae th~ cthc'1oee4, 3 14)022 / 041 P.04 vu, .:.0 1 .:.vv,:. .1.0 : -.v ri\\A .\u0026gt;u.1. JiO l:.l4l 1-l\u0026lt;lVA~ l::LDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 11/17/95 14,53 .IJRlr,T, U~Y, '\u0026amp;. Jt:NNll'b3 NU  .l.:\u0026gt;\u0026lt;f I\"'~~ At'G-30-94 TtJE l5i47  U S DISTRICT Cl.ERi FAX NO. 1501972'4612 p, 05 - Th court fincU ls:\u0026amp;IICI and \"1t.lUP491 ar, :not ol.ndin9 on tl'ab Court Ad aven 1t th cowt apwaaa that tboy ua, tll cloiaiot)a do :,ct ro:-aclosa this Cou~ frOll 1u.1nq an . orclor proteClting etto~nY-oliant. cc1au.nicatio11a or attorney worJc produot. (See Ark. Coda AM, I a5-1t105Cb) (I), which axupte tro11 th J'Oll dooaenta vhicaa are protaote4 ttoa lliaclosura by orclr or rule ot court. ) It i 1ntoraatinv ec, note that 'Louiiana' Public Reoorda i..w poitioally exeapea attorn.~ vcr~ produc,t tro it tel'II, ~ut no~ aatorial protected by tha attorney~Uan~ privilege. S T111se y, LQui  iana tans, t SXplQ~tilpn, 805 F.S~)p. 315 (M.D. IA. 1992). tn exllllli~in; tha ~kan1ae authori~iH, it is rea411Y apparent that the tocu and concorn ot tbe ArJcaftU State oow:tu 111 with the 11hol l)ody of ArlcanH law, anct tile function of Arkanaa law in the affliz or kk.an oi~iaen Thie fade.al court, Vhil 8ituatoll within Arkanaa, \"t navei-thel.eH h11ve a it pr!aary concern ~ eftiaiant: adainitration ct jutiaa and the tair resolution of federal olai rau .. eole br the psrti litiiant in federal oourt. Th111, ~darl lav and prooedllr auet. )a appli~. 1'1' IS, 'nllRll'OU, OIU\u0026gt;DJD that 1111 papu1, ntar1al.a, and othar thinp colla~ted o~ praparect by th ,-rt1 or their ~prnbtJ.vee in anticipation tor trial, or otheni wiel\\1n th aoope of th r..ieral work product: ISoatrin, ancl all. pri vata ooamw,ications of anr kind between th d~andant anct their 0o~nl Within the ; racogni1ed bcundari ot the 141023 / 041 vv, .Q , .uu~ ~u - ~v r,u,. avi J/0 ~i4/ ~KlVAX tJ..lJ.lti,;VGt \u0026amp; Cl.AJ\u0026lt;K 11/17 /95 14: 54 WRIGHT f 1..lNLJ::c. Y, ;s.. ; ttiN 1 No:\u0026gt; r...i  .\u0026amp;.-\u0026gt;'+ . P!JG-30-94 TUE 15:48 U tDISTRICT CURI FAJOIO. i50J972481Z . P,06 -~raar-oliant pd.vilo9ca, ~ h~oy ~ro~~t:od t~o. cUaooviy . \\Jy '= oppoainq pu-ty or l'elaa to any ~Ud pa.ty, ucpt by order ot thi eo~rt. 5 1410241 041 V0 / ,\u0026amp;.0 / ,\u0026amp;.VV,\u0026amp;. J.0 : 4J. rAA :\u0026gt;UJ. J\"[!j :!147 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK l-N THE CilCUIT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, ARXA.N'SAS 141025/ 041 ,.,,,11-r-- '-.J'---I-STAT OF AFJ\u0026lt;ANSAS PLAINTIFF vs. CIVIL No. 92-100 HABILITATION CENTER, INC. an Arkansas Corporation d/b/a MILLCREEK OF ARKANSAS; MILLCREEK MANAGEMENT, INC., a Mississippi Corporati~n; DR. JAMES 0. STEPHENS, M.D., (in his individual capacity, and in his official capacities as President and Chainnan of the Bca:d of P.abilitation Center, Inc., and Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. , and as Chairman of the Board o~ Millcreek Management, Inc.); JOSEPH L. STEPHENS, (in his individual capacity, and in his official capacities as Vice President of Habilitation Center, Inc., Rehabilitation centers, Inc., and Millcreek Management, Inc.); BILL SIMMONS, ( in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); and WAl'~DA MILES-BELL, (in her individual capacity and in her ofticial capacities as Executive Director and General Manager of Millcreek of Arkansas and Vice President of Millcreek Management, Inc.}; DEFENDANTS ORDER on this 31st day of January, 1995, there is presented to the Court the Motions :for Protective Order filed on l:\u0026gt;~half of defendant Habilitation, Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. and William sutto~. The Attorney G~ner~l ha?ing f~lly responded and the Court being sufficiently advised, having heard arguments of counsel and having fully considered this matter IT rs NOW, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The office of the Attorney General served a request for records under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, .au- Code Ann 25-19-101, et seq., (hereinafter FOIA) upon Mr. William Sutton, custodian of records at the law firm of Friday, E1dredge \u0026amp; PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT . 3 - -- 141026/ 041 Clark, attorneys for the defendant Habiiitation Center, Inc. d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, seeking the law firm's ~iles relating to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. {hereinafter Millcreek Schools) and Habilitation Center, Inc. (hereinafter Habilitation). The requests speci.tically seek \"documents, notes,: pleadings, memorandum [sic)_-, work pa:2ers, attorney work papers includinci work product _p::-epc.;:::-e.i, ge~.?::-at~d or re1ai:-ed -to any ~ark done by your fi:r:m for Habilitation Centers, Inc. [sic] or Millcreek Schools of A~kansas, Inc. in State ot Arkansas v. Habilitation centers, Inc., [sic) CIV- 92-100 in Dallas County, Arkansas.\" The Attorney General served similar FOIA requests on Habilitation and Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. Jurisdiction and Venue The threshold issue for this Court's determination is whether the Court has jurisdiction to enter the protective orders sought. The plaintiff selected the Dallas County Circuit Court in which to bring the pending case pursuant to Ark. ~ Ann. 16-13-201 and venue was established in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 16-106- ~CJ.. ( .Cl)  .:~r.::.:.c!i.cticn-i.: .this Ccu:rt was t.t1en pro~r; ,:inc! this Court retains that jurisdiction and control over the case pursuant to the a!oresaid statutes. Al though the Freedom of Information Act establishes a separate authority under which information may be obtained under certain circUJ11stances, there is no question but that a FOIA request to a law firm representin9 a defendant in a pending case within the jurisdiction OI this Court is so intertwined with that pending case as to fall within the jurisdiction cf the court. 2 I: 1\".Kll\u0026gt;AY .t:;U,Kt;l\u0026gt;li.t \u0026amp; l.LA.Kll. 14JU27 / U41 If the Attorney General akes a FOIA request of a totally separate entity, that .separate entity would not be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, and the Attorney General would be free to pursue its FOIA request in -whatave:r jurisdiction lUay be perMitted by law. The Attorney General has not named Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc . as a party defendant.  The Attorney General has made reference to \"Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, a separate entity owned by defendant, Habilitation\" in its first amended complaint. The Court is convinced that Millcreek Schools of Arkansas and Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, both allegedly owned by Habilitation, should be considered to be the same entity as Habilitation d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, and accordingly Millcreek Schools of Arkansas is not truly a separate entity but rather it is an integral part o~ Habilitation. Therefore it, too, comes within the jurisdiction of this Court. In holding that this Court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue to resolve the issues relating to the FOIA, the Court ackncwl\u0026amp;ociges -~'lat  i.: is inapp1.~pric1te for 'Che threat of pocential enforcement in another forum to hang over the defendants as they prepare for trial, and it is in the interest of judicial economy to have this court handle all issues relating to the 111atters at hand. Venue is proper only in the circuit court of the judicial district in which the entity is located when the de~endant is an entity which is a private organization even though supported by public funds. Here, all the FO!A targets are such private 3 I I I I I I I .l:'.tUJJ,H .t::U,.t\u0026lt;J:.J.)1,J:. \u0026amp; I...L,UUI. ~028/ 041 organizations resisting the turn over of information pursuant to the FOIA, The 10ere fact that the Attorney General itself is located in Pulaski County and is a state agency does not create venue in that county in these circumstances. standing The detendants' attorneys seek a prot~ctive order in order to protect the attorney/client privilege being asserted on behalf of their clients which include the defendant Habilitation. Habilitation has standing by virtue of being a party litigant in the case brought by the Attorney General. The law finn of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark has standing to seek a protective order since it represents HabilitatioTI. Habilitation is Not Subject to the FOIA. The major issue is whether Habilitation center, Inc. is an entity subject to the FOIA. If it is, its attorney's files may be discoverable under FOIA. It is settled under Arkansas law that attorney work product and records are not per se exempt from FOIA disclosure under Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105. See Scott v. smith, 2-92 -Ark. 174, 728 S'.W.2d 515 {1.987), Arkansas Highway Department v. Hope Brick Works, Inc., 294 Ark. 490, 744 S.W.2d 711 (1988) and City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990). Although a court hearing a FOIA enforcement action may not issue a protective order under that section to protect in~ormation otherwise subject to disclosure,1 nevertheless, the trial court is 1Ark. Newspa~er. Inc. v. Patterson, 281 Ark. 213, 262 S.W.2d 826 (1994), city or Fayetteviile v. Edmark, supra, at page 193. 4 ll)029 / 041 able to create an exemption !ram the FOIA as authorized by~~ film. 25-19-105 (b) (8) since the limitations on protective orders do not apply to trial courts. The threshold issue, ho--wever, is whether FOIA even applies in the situation before the Court. In order to make that detennination, the Court 1nust decide whether the materials sought by the Attorney General are public records within the l!leaning of the FOIA. 2 Habi1itation is a privately owned for-profit entity receiving Medicaid funds; it is not a government agency. Given the facts of this situation, it :may be an \"other agency\" subject to the FOIA because it is \"wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds.\" Courts have enforced FOIA requests to particular private entities when they are \"Wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. 1 This Court has also considered a number 2Ark. ~ Ann. 25-19-103 (1) provides in pertinent pa:rt, \"PUblic records means writings, recorded sounds, fil1ns, tapes or data, compilations in any form required by law to be kept or otherwise kept and which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official f~nctions which are or should be carried out by a \"public official or an employee or government m:: any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds o~ e::9endinc;: public funds , .n  (emphasis suppliedJ 3See North Central Association of Colleges and Schools v. Trout :srothers. Inc., 261 Ark. 378, 548 S.W.2d 285 (1977); Arkansas Gazette company v. southern state College, 273 Ark. 248, 620 s.W.2d 258 (1981), app. dismissed 455 U.S. 931 (1982); and Behab Hospital Services corp. v. Delta Hills Health System5 Agency. Inc., 285 Ark. 397 687 S. W. 2d 840 (1985). The first two of the cited cases indicate the factors that must be present before a private entity will be subject to the FOIA. First, there must be direct publ.ic funding. Secondly, there must be indirect public support. Third, there must be public concern with respect to the organization's activities. The primary source of funding being governmental and the serving of a public - purpose_ . Day subject the private organization to the FOIA. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. supra. Recently the Arkansas supreme court has declared that public funds 5 .HUVA~ ELDREDGl:: \u0026amp; Cl.ARK Ill 030/ 041 of Attorney General's opinions which are not binding as precedent, but which are instructive. The Attorney General has opined that \"when the activities of a private organization and the government become so intertwined, the private organization may well render itself part of the state for [FOIA] purposes.\" Ark. op. No. 83- 163. In that opinion, the AG opined that the mere re.ceipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds by a private nonprofit hospital or a for-profit investor owned facility would not trigger the FOIA. More recently, the Attorney General has opined that the mere receipt of public funds is not in itself sufficient to bring a private organization within the FOIA; rather, the question is whether the private entity carries on public business or is otherwise intertwined with the activities of the government. Ark. Op. AG No. 94-131 (May 13, 1994), citing City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, (1990) and Op. AG Nos. 91-131, 94-154 and 83-163. Here both Habilitation and Millcreek Schools do not conduct their activities with or ror the benefit of or in the place of any public agency. Neither is established by lav. Neither is any more regulated -or supervised 1:han hospitals or nursing homes or schools. No govermnental authority is at Habilitation nor is any Habilitation employee located in any government office. Habilitation deter111ines the programs for the chil.dren, not the State. include only direct public tunding, not indirect support. Sebastian City Chapter ot the American Red cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656 (845) S.W.2d 641 (1993). 6 ~031/041 Habilitation and Millcreek are engaged in the private rendering of Medicaid and other Medicaid eligible services to private individuals. People performing these services are not public officials. Habilitation is providing Medicaid and other services pursuant to a standard form contract, not making public policy. Even though all or a substantial part ofits incoine is derived !romthe government, it is being paid only for services and is not being subsidized as an extension of government. These facts do not lead to the conclusion that Habiliation and Millcreek are so connected or intertwined as to bring them within the purview of FOIA disclosure. After evaluating the facts and in light of preceden~, the Court finds that Habilitation and Millcreek are not private entities subject to the FOIA. While the l.ine limiting the reach ot FOIA is not bright and while the FOIA is to be liberally construed for disclosure of records in the public domain, Ragland v. Yeargen, 288 Ark. Bl, 702 S.W.2d 23 (1986), the tacts in this case cannot justify a conclusion that \"public business\" was or is being conducted by Habilitation. The intent of t.._e legislature was to expose the per.formance o:f public o:ificials and or the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public polic;y. While the public at large as electors do have an interest in how the Medicaid progral!l is being conducted and should haYe access to all agency recoxds relating thereto, including those supplied by Habil.itation under its contract, they have no overriding interest in how a private service provider renders its services to private 7 (OJ..!/041 -  individuals. There silllply is no legal precedent or suggestion that it was the intent of the legislature to subject the private activities and all licensed entities and individuals to public scrutiny under the FOIA. Thus it is the decision of this Court that Habilitation is not subject to tbe FO~A; Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark is Not Subject to the FOIA Additionally, the court also finds that Friday, Eldrecge \u0026amp; Clark is not subject to FOIA. It is an obviously private entity receiving no obvious public funds, and its clients are not a public entity. The court believes that the Attorney General I s FOIA request to Habilitation and Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark is discovery abuse. Defendants and their counsel are entitled to protection to 111aintain the integrity of the discovery process set out in the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Unauthorized access to attorney/client or attorney/work product privileged material can deprive defendants of due process. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion for Protective Order to protect the FOIA requested material from Habilitation .should be and hereby is granted. Additionally, the protective order is extended to Millcreek of Arkansas, to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc., to Mil'lcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, and to Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark as attorney to the extent of any materials in any way related to this litigation. The Attorney General may, if it so chooses, amend its complaint with respect to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. if it determines that amendment of the name of the defendant is appropriate. -- 8 14] OJJ/ 0 4 1 Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-l0S{b) (8) Exemption The Court rurther finds that even were the defendant subject to the FOIA, the exemption provided in Ark. ~ film 25-19- 105 {b) (8) which expressly exempts \"docwnents ~hich .are protected trom disclosure by oraers or rul.es of court\" would apply in this case. As the Supreme Court stated in . City of Fayetteville v. Edrnark, su~ra at 191: A trial court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity o! the Court in actions pending before it and may issue appropriate protective orders that would provide FOIA exemption under 25-19-105(b)(8). This Court having underlying jurisdiction over the underlying litigation finds that a protective order should be issued to restrict disclosure ot documents being sought pursuant to FOIA. If there is any subsequent review by any other circuit court - considering related FOIA requests, this protective order is issued specifically within the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) to protect from the FOIA materials which otherwise might be disclosable. Id. Other Motions The derendants' Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is governed by the Written Agreement of the Parties provided to the court in their joint Motion for Continuance. Accordingly, depositions of parties may begin again only as set out in the Agreement. The Attorney General's Motion to Strike Affidavits will be considered ~y the Court when -it receives the plaintiff's Response to the Motion !or SuJ1U11ary Judgment. The defendants' Reply to the 9 ~ U;J4 / U41 Attorney General's Response to the Motion for SWDl11ary Judgment, if any~ will be due within ten business days thereafter. The Attorney General has filed a Motion for Default on Attorney General's Motion to Strike. That Motion i -s denied. Conclusion . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants' Motion be and it hereby is granted. It is further ordered that a protective order be and hereby is issued over all materials sought by the Attorney General under the FOIA unless they are otherwise discoverable or admissible into evidence. The Motion to Quash Notice ot Depositions is hereby granted until otherwise provided in the agreement o~ the parties. The Motion for Default on the Attorney General's Motion to Strike is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1995. ~ day of deJn ~ ~~~ 10 I I I; I UO / l/J / lUU l .10 : 44 .l:iU. :)Ul J 7 tS 21 4 7 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Ill 0351 0 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DIS!RICT COURT 1N TIIB EASTERN DISTRICT OF AIU{ANStjJ/tt PINE BLUFF DMSION ~~iL.,;,,L::J:t:~~ ROGER HEATiiSCOTI PLAINTIFF VS. NO. 5:00-CV-00333-WRW UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. DEFENDANT ORDER For the fC3SOQ.S stated in a telephone conference yesterday, the plaintiff's motion (Doc.5) for a protective order is GRAN'IED. Accordingly, defendant must not compel the plaintiff to attend the physical examination scheduled for Februaxy 14, 2001, with Dr. Baskin, M.D., and it must not compel the anendance of the plaintiff at the functional capacity examination scheduled for February 19, 2001. Further, plaintiff must not be disciplined for failing to attend these examinations. I rely primarily upon Smith 11. Union Pacific Railroad Co . 878 F.Supp. J 71 (D.Co. J 995) and Vicary -v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 942 F .Supp. 1146 (N.D. Ohio 1996) whlch seem to be well reasoned. Unlike the plaintiffs in Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, 959 F .2d 698 (8111 Cir. 1992), the plainti:ffhcre unquestionably 1w a separate, independent cause of action under the Federal Employers Liability Act (\"FELA\") 45 U.S.C.  51 et seq. l believe discovery in the FELA action should proceed under the standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. and that these n.tles are not tromped by the defendant's medical examination rules (via the Railway Labor Act 45 U .S.C.  151 et seq.) In fact, under the theory urged by defendant. a railroad could severally hamstring a FELA plaintiff-with company regulations. Defendant contends that 1his order is in the nature of an order \"granting, continuing. modifying or dissolving [ an J injwtction'' which would be subject to an interlocutory appeal under ~ PLAINTIFF'S i EXHIBIT i 4 I 287 U.S. C.  1 992. I do not know what authority I have to enhance defendant's right to an interlocutory appeal, but to the extent that I have such authority, 1 grant it: in full. --1+ IT IS SO ORDERED this/ tf/c1ay ofFebnwy, 2001 !~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT nus DOCUMENT DflcRED ON DOCKlT SHEET 1H CCMPl.lANCc WITH RULE S8 ANOIOII 7,ttJ FflCP ON /b(a, for BY ~L I ~U;J6/ U41 ..' . ,. ... . - .., , - .,; , - v ,...   V'  -. v A ,-. V V .a. V , V - -1,. \"t I rl\\.J.V/\\..1. .C.J.,J.J~UU.C. ' V.\u0026amp;...l\\llA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ~UJ7/ U41 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGIIT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING LRSD seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 26{c) to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA \"), Ark Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25- - 19-110. Rule 26(c) provides: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith confctrcd or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause 5hown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on mattel'S relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, opprcssio~ or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1) that the disclosure or discovery not be had; (2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions. including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; ( 4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain mattera; * *  r .tu u Al .ta.u .iu:.uur. a. ~ Lt\\.KII. There can be no doubt that Joshua is using the FOIA to conduct \"discovery.\" Accordingly, 1his Coun should exercise its power to control discovery as contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1@0J8/ 04l The fact that Joshua is using the FOIA, rather than the \"'Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to obtain discovery does prevent this Court from issuing a protective order pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 26(c). The FOIA clearly contemplates protective orders being issued to prevent the FOIA from being used to conduct discovery. Section 25-19-105(b)(8) exempts from disclosure \"documents which are protected from disclosure by order or rule of court.\" The Arkansas Supreme Court in City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990), recognized the a trial court's authority to issue a protective order precluding a litigant's use of the FOIA. The court stated: A trial court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity of the court in actions pending before it and may issue appropriate protective orders that would provide FOIA exemption under Section 25-19-105(b)(8) . .. We interpret this section as requiring the circuit court to grant exemption if another court has restricted disclosure of the documents being sought. The FOIA court must give credit to protective orders previously issued by other courts. Id. 304 Ark. at 191, 801 S.W.2d at 275. Following Edmark, both state and federal judges have issued protective orders requiring discovery be conducted pursuant to the applicable rules of civil procedure., rather than the FOIA. See Dr John Mangieri v_ Arkansas State University U.S.D.C. No. J-C-94-140 (August 30, 1994)(attached as Exhibit 2 to Motion) and State of Arkansas v Habi]jtation Center. Inc .. Dallas County Circuit No. 92-100 (Feb. 14, 1995)(attached as Exhibit 3 to Motion). Joshua may argue that FOIA. requests are not \"discovery\" which may be controlled pursuant to Rule 26( c ). However, Rule 26( c) has been held to apply to all forms of discovery, \\ not just the discovery devices created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Smith v, Union Pacific R, Co,, 878 F.Supp. 171 (D. Colo. 1995), the railroad. sought to require an employee. Smith, to attend a return-to-work physical pursuant to the railroad's medical rules. When Smith failed to attend, the railroad initiated disciplinary proceedings against Smith. Smith had been off 2 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK taJ 039 / 0 41 work due to an on-the-job injury and had .filed a FELA suit against the railroad. Smith moved for a protective order to prevent the railroad :from requiring rum to attend the return-to-work physical. The trial court granted the motion stating: To the extent the \"back-to-work\" physical and ensuing disciplinary proceedings bear on issues relevant to this FELA action and gene.rate .facts or medical opinions that could be used as evidence against Smith, it constitutes \"discovery\" within the meaning of Fed. R Civ. P. 26(b)(l) and is subject to this court's authority under Rule 26(c) .. . to manage and control as justice requires. See gen~ 8 Wright, Miller \u0026amp; Marcus. Eederal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d,  2036, pp. 487-88 (1994)(the district court has complete control over the discovery process); I find justice requires entry of a protective order prolu\"biting UP from requiring Smith to attend the \"back to work\" physical at issue and from initiating disciplinary proceedings against Smith based on his failure to so attend. Id. 878 F.Supp. at 173. ~ Vicary v. Consolidated Rail Crup., 942 F.Supp. 1146, 1149 (N.D. Ohio 1996)(following Smith) and Heathscott v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., U.S.D.C. No. 5:00CV00333-WRW (Feb. 16, 200l)(following Smith and~andattached as Exhibit4to Motion). Similarly, to the extent Joshua intends to use LRSD's FOIA response in proceedings before this Court, the FOIA request constitutes discovery subject to this Court's authority under Rule 26(c). See also John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, 153, 110 S.Ct. 471, 476, 107 LEd.2d 462 (1989)(\"[A] court must be mindful of this Court's observations that the FOIA was not intended to supplement or displace rules of discovery.\"); Parton v. United States DeJ\u0026gt;'t ofJustice, 727 F.2d 774, 777 (811, Cir. 1984)(\"Due to the circumstances present in this suit, it is also well to note that it is not the purpose of the [Freedom ofJnformation] Act to benefit private litigants by serving as a supplement to the rules of civil discovery.\"); Kanter v. Internal Revenue Service, 433 F.Supp. 812, 819 (N.D. Ill. 1977)(\"Accordingly, the Court finds that the Freedom of Infunnation Act may not be utilized as a means of obt.aining the release of information which would be protected from discovery in a pending or prospective enforcement proceeding.\"). This court should exercise its discretion under Rule 26(c) to prevent Joshua from using the FOIA to conduct discovery in preparation. .f or the July 2.2 , 2002 hearing in this case. The ' .. ~ parties have already exchanged their witness and exhibit lists pursuant to the Court's scheduling 3 uo 1 ,:.0 1 .:.vu,:. .1.0 : 4 0 l\".1\\4. ;\u0026gt;U.l J'/1) ;.(.l 4 7 .1-'RIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Ill 0 4 01 0 41 order. Thus, additional documents obtained by Joshua from the LRSD will not be admissible at the July 22, 2002 hearing. The breadth of the requests suggests that Joshua's pUipose is to harass the LRSD as LRSD works to prepare for the July 22, 2002 h~aring. _ The burdensome nature of the requests is compounded by the potential criminal penalty (up to 30 days in jail) which could :flow from the LRSD's failure to respond within three days. See Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-104. Furthermo~, simple fairness requires that Joshua and LRSD be required to play by the same rules. While Joshua has 30 days to respond to LRSD's discovery submitted pursuant to Rule 26, LRSD has only three days (at best) to respond to FOIA requests. This provides an unfair advantage to Joshua unrelated to the merits of the underlying case. Joshua should not be permitted to use the FOIA to pressure LRSD by making it impossible for LRSD to go about the business of educating children. ff the integrity of the judicial process is to be maintained, the playing field must be leveled. Joshua should be required to conduct discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) LITTLEROCKSCHOOLDIBTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CL.ARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR. 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 B~ 4 . FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on June 28, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. W Al.KER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Li~e Rock, AR 72201 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 Rocle. AR 72201 s 1410 41/041 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK fAIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL CO~PORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW :lOOO t-111~ I t;UMM!:RCIAL BUILDING 4UU Wt:~ I \u0026lt;.,;APITOL AVENUE I.I I I Lt: HUt;K, AHKANSAS 72201-3493 I t:Lt:1-'HUNI:! 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE TO: Dr. Ken James 324-2146 FROM: DIRECT NUMBER MESSAGE.: Richard Roachell 224-4409 Dennis R. Hansen 682-8084 Steve Jones 375-1027 Sam Jones 376-9442 rhris Heller 370-1506 TOTAL NO . nF PZl.r.l-!~ n.1/\"'r.rmn.m Tl.l'TC! !NFOP~AT!ON SF.BET: fl DATE: June 28. 2002 TIME: ____ ____ __ .A.M./P.M. IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES - PLEASE CALL BACK ASAP (501) 370-1444 Brenda ~001/041 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: ____________ H_I~2=3~~---9~0'-------- CLIENT NUMBER MATTER NUMBER CONFI DENTI .ALIT'z NOXE: The information in this facsimile eransmittal is legally privileged and confidential in~onnation illeepded only or the use of the .individual or ent:..ity named above. Iz the rei,.der of this message .iB not the intended r ecipient, you u-a hereby notified chac any dissemination, distribucion or copy of the transmittal i3 3triccly prohibited- If you receive z:hig transmittal in errgr, please i mmdiacely notify us by t:elephone, a.nd return the original transmittal to us \u0026amp;t t:he above address via the United States Postal Service _ Thank you.    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_30","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":["2002-06","2002-07","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":["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/30"],"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.\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 8 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for June 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN,# 97225 Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on July 2, 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, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 7220 I 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 ~f~ Dennis R. Hansen 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 June 28, 2002 Based on the.information .. avajiable atjv1ay :~j{ 2092\n.J6$ AD~(:Mculaled the Equalization Funding for F'(.01102, iUbje~(J8j5'erfodicadjdsfn:ignts'. . 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 June 28, 2002 ~:, l~\\~Sies~~{ii'~~~i\nr~i\n~::i~rei~i!~:~ay3T:'2602t}He:'AQ!\n:'~!9I\nJ~t!Jc1:[:E C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 ~\n:\n~~wi~:: 2602:' distribGtioHs cS(siateEqlialiZa\"Ho\"ii E:~naihg'fBnEX'EiJJq:'{w\n'r~ rnsb~i41,262,49o NLRSr3 [ $25,470,415 i=icssd! $4.9, 138,06s 1ne allotrr,ents of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY rij'102 at M'ay 3f: 2002\"\nsubject to peri6'dic adjustments, were as follows: LRSb f $5.1,583,043 NLRS[fl $27,862,936 PCSSD .~ $53,735,000 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2 Actual as of June 28, 2002 Based On ttie information available, the ADE calcufated at May 31, 2002 for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 tt~'!~~\n:sfiJ6,~\n:)fa!:ri.r(~Il~'~y.i\\_~}i,~'.!!fa~,At\u0026gt; E:caiciate'cJ., at r0..aY 31'{2002:Jo.FE,X QJl92\u0026amp;~Q.bjec,('Jq ' p~rii:id.i\nadjU$.tr.i\\~riW 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 June 28, 2002 a'\ntmBh'ffi'\u0026amp;Jhforitikticin avairahle,'thEi\nADE caicuiated at May 31 '. i662foFFY Q]/02, tCibjectfo periodic adjustments. 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 June 28, 2002 Distributions for FY 01102 at May 31, 2002, totaled $10,181,885. Aliotment 2ai_culatedfor FY 01/02 was $11,204,681 subject to periodic adjustments'. 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 June 28, 2002 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. 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 June 28, 2002 r 'd6~:~J!e:fIDt.:i211I'.:!'.[~jcGiate'd f6r FY.01/02 afMay.31, 2662, sub}ect io 'r5eri~dlc a 1ustmen s\n,:,w~re: P3Q.A::\n~,Jzi1?? .. NLRSDf '.$2\n046,540 PCSSD_TsI(()s3\n41a ., ..... . J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In September 2001, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01 /02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 June 28, 2002 In September 2001, General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 00/01 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. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 In March 2002, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 01 /02 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At March 31 , 2002, the following had been paid for FY 01 /02 LRSD - $2 ,312,194.00 NLRSD - $423,333.34 PCSSD - $944,264.16 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 June 28, 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. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) 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 . 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 June 28, 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. 6 -1. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) 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. 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. 0 . 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 June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q . Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. R. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2 Actual as of June 28, 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. S. 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 June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 June 28, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 28, 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. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 28, 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. 9 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 (Continued) 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. 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 June 28, 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 June 28, 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 June 28, 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 June 28, 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 (SA T-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 June 28, 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 June 28, 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 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 June 28, 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 June 28, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 17 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 June 28, 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. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. C. 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 June 28, 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 June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 18 e 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 June 28, 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. 1 9 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 June 28, 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 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 June 28, 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 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 June 28, 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. 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 June 28, 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 N LRSD 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. 23 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 June 28, 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 June 28, 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 June 28, 2002 Ongoing 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 24 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 June 28, 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 25 V COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) 0 Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of AOE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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 Or. 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 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 June 28, 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 AD E'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. 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 June 28, 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 AD E'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. 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 June 28, 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. 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 June 28, 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. 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 June 28, 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. 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 June 28, 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. oR:Oulielmr~JRi2.ftB\n::e.rRansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the i5MTand lts e{~tuH9e sGmmar/ior.the rTiqrlth of May. 3 2 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 June 28, 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. 33 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 June 28, 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 34 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 June 28, 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 representati ves 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 . 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 June 28, 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 June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VLF. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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 June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assi stance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 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. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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 in service 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. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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 ACTAAP 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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 October2 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. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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, (ie , 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 . 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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, PE 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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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 Feurjg , 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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. 49 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 28, 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. 50 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) ii if l!f !if f:f fr t~~tri:~Jf.~~ ::i\n:~~x thlproficiehnevei 6noheotmore partsof the most recent Benchmark Ei1miriatfofr:\"UfHg '~genda _included presentations On ''The Plan-Do-Check-Act IQ 0 Stfudiof1~1 cY.~igj '.~y'foe.:.d.~tionally known spec1kerPat Davenport. ADE p\\(ffionnei'. provlde'cf '.$ff~xpianation of the MPH point program. Presentations weFe made by'{iali,\"'and uferacy Specialists: Dr, Charity Smith, Assistant oir~cior rdt /42t8tNhabiltty, gave a presentation about ACTAAP. Break out se's'sfons w'ereheid, Tnwhich s'chool districts with h1gh scores on the MPH poiri(program ofr~fed strategies and insights into increasing student iichievement. .The .NLRSD, LRSD, and PCSSD were invited to attend. The NLRSD attended the workshop. 51 VIL 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 June 28, 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 SA T-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 June 28, 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 52 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 June 28, 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 SAT-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. 53 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 June 28, 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. 54 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 June 28, 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 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 June 28, 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. 56 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 June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII. D. of this report. 8. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as oJ June 28, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 28, 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 June 28, 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 57 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 June 28, 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 58 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 June 28, 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 wel l as the district staff development and potential sites for training 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. 59 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 June 28, 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. 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 June 28, 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. 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 June 28, 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 Dire\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1459","title":"Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2002-05-31"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"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/1459"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["33 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1736","title":"District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and 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":["2002-05-08"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School enrollment","School districts","Student activities","Students","Parents","Teachers","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records regarding motion for substitution of counsel, Joshua intervernor's response to Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to declare unitary status, notices of filing ODM report and 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/1736"],"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":["91 page scan, typed","50 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 \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, five orders; District Court, motion for substitution of counsel; District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' opposition to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; 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 u.foilfm~cPuRT -\"'EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAY 0 7 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff;-- vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * ORDER ~~M~~ No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED MAY -8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua lntervenors have moved for a second extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") Motion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status. For cause, Joshua Intervenors state that they are in settlement talks with LRSD on the issue ofLRSD's unitary status, and that \"additional time is needed to continue these discussions.\" Although Joshua's counsel has asked to extend the response time until May 20, 2002, I take judicial notice of the fact that he is a candidate for the Arkansas Senate; and the primary election is on Tuesday, May 21 , 2002. Accordingly, I am granting Joshua Intervenors an extension until and including May 30, 2002. I do note that the chances of another extension are remote, at best. DATED this ( tff day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE w~/iULE ss ANotoR~7F9R CP ON ~(}y BY ~ ~ 1 7 595 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN D1STRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. l , et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. , lntervenors, 4:82cv00866 RECEIVED MAY - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG ORDER The parties are notified that Judge J. Thomas Ray is the U. S. Magistrate Judge assigned to this case. Dated this 6th day of May, 2002 . . /11:L ' ------ JY ry{, ~ . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR ~CP ON -0.-1 f?\"\"r: BY , c.,,,,,. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 596 A072A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT CO_B~J~Jk1 ~1?ouRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN~ER~l DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION MAY 9 2082 LITTLE ROCKS,CHOOL DISTRICT JAMES VY. IVIT\\L~n 1V1ALK., CLE.RK. B . \\J y .:OT A ~ --- y. - - Ut:t''.Ct:tKK V. No. 4-:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAY 1 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS On January 3, 2002, I was assigned this twenty-year-old action, which over the years has come to be known in this District simply as \"the school case\" (docket entry #3570). Pleadings in the case now occupy hundreds of feet of files in the District Court Clerk's office, and the magnitude of the appeals in the case has led the Eighth Circuit to adopt a policy of rotating the case to a new appeal panel every five years. Thus, by necessity, the decisions I make will be built on the footings and foundations poured by other District Court and Appellate Court Judges--their decisions have shaped the current contours of the case. On March 15, 2001, approximately nine months before I inherited this case, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a pleading which could result in a watershed ruling--a Request for Scheduling Order and attached Compliance Report ( docket entry #3410) aimed at obtaining \"an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations.\" Id. Subsequently, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") filed an Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3447) in which they challenge the LRSD's contention that it is entitled to A072A a judicial declaration that it has achieved overall unitary status. On January 25, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry#357 l) referring the issue of unitary status to a mediator. In doing so, it was my understanding that the LRSD and Joshua both had requested mediation as a means of promptly, efficiently, and finally resolving that issue. Over ninety days have now elapsed, with no report that progress has been made through mediation. I was somewhat sanguine, but the lapse of time with no report of progress has dampened my optimism. 1 On March 15, 2002, one year to the day after filing its Compliance Report, the LRSD filed a Motion for an lrnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( docket entry #3580) and supporting Memorandum Brief (docket entry #3581). On May 6, 2002, I entered an Order (docket entry #3595) granting Joshua's request for an extension of time and allowing them until and including May 30, 2002, to file their Response. The recent actions of the parties, in placing the issue of unitary status back before me, appears to be a clear signal that mediation is not succeeding and that settlement negotiations have stalled. Therefore, the Court intends to decide, soon, the issue of unitary status raised in the LRSD's March 15 Motion. Inheriting the case at this point (I hope its shadow is falling far to the east) has required me to review an enormous amount of material just to try to determine where we are.2 Although 1On April 18, 2002, Joshua filed a Motion for Extension of Time (docket entry #3592) that alludes to the parties having engaged in \"settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status.\" I have heard nothing further from the parties regarding these settlement discussions. It is most unlikely that any future requests for extensions will be granted because of \"settlement discussions.\" 2The fields of education and \"school litigation\" also have a jargon of their own which a neophyte must attempt to absorb. -2- A072A IRP.vR/~ it may be old hat to the parties, I believe it will be helpful for me to set out in some detail where I find we are and, just as importantly, where I intend to go. I. Where I Find We Are On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval of the LRSD's January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"). On April 10, 1998, the Court entered an Order ( docket entry #3144) approving the Revised Plan. Section 11 of the Revised Plan specifically describes the procedure the LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary Status At the conclusion of the 2000-0 I 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 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 further proceedings. On March 15, 200 l , the LRSD filed the required \"Compliance Report\" ( docket entry #3410),3 which describes section by section the LRSD's alleged \"substantial compliance'\"' with each provision of the Revised Plan. The Court entered an Order (docket entry #3414) establishing May 18, 2001, as the 3 Although not required by the Revised Plan, on March 15, 2000, the LRSD filed an Interim Compliance Report (docket entry #3356). 4 The Revised Plan does not define what \"substantial compliance\" means, but, as Professor McCormick teaches us, it takes \"a skillful definer to make it plainer by multiplication of words   the explanations themselves often need more explanation than the term explained . .. . \" 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence, 341, p. 430 (5th ed. 1999). -3- A07?A --- deadline for challenges to the LRSD's Compliance Report. Subsequently, Joshua moved three times for extensions of that deadline ( docket entries #3415, #3429, and #3443). Finally, the Court entered an Order (docket entry#3445) establishing June 25, 2001, as the final deadline for Joshua to file their Response to the LRSD's Compliance Report.5 On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to the LRSD 's Compliance Report ( docket entry #3447). In this Opposition, Joshua argues that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with various specifically enumerated sections of the Compliance Report and describes the nature of the LRSD's noncompliance under each of those sections. Importantly, Section 11 of the Revised Plan explicitly provides that the \"challenging party'' has the burden of proving that the LRSD has failed to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan. Counsel for Joshua has acknowledged on the record that the Court has \"given us and by agreement we accept the burden of proof' ( docket entry #3464, transcript of July 9, 2001 scheduling conference, p. 26, lines 14-17).6 Almost immediately after Joshua filed their Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report, the Court began a series of telephone conferences with counsel (docket entries #3348 and #3349) to establish a schedule for conducting evidentiary hearings on Joshua's challenges to the Compliance Report. During the June 29, 2001 telephone conference, the Court set aside July 5 5During a telephone conference on June 29, 2001, the Court described in some detail the circumstances surrounding the three extensions of this filing deadline ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, pp. 24-25). 61ndependent of this judicial admission, the Court specifically ruled that, under the plain language of Section 11 of the Revised Plan, it was agreed that any party, such as Joshua, who challenges the LRSD' s compliance will bear the burden of proof ( docket entry #3461, transcript of June 29, 2001 telephone conference, p. 26, lines 11 -21). -4- A072A (Rev.8/82) and 6 and August 1 and 2 to hear evidence from Joshua regarding its challenges to the LRSD's \"substantial compliance\" with the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3461 at p. 25, lines 22-25, and p. 26, lines 1-9). The Court also made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence ( docket entry #3461, pp. 54-55). Because Joshua has the burden of proof, the Court allowed them to put on their case first. On July 5 and 6, 2001 , Joshua called as witnesses Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services (docket entry #3462, transcript of July 5, 2001 evidentiary hearing and docket entry #3463, transcript ofJuly 6, 2001 evidentiaryhearing at pp. 274-340) and Dr. Les Carnine, the former Superintendent of the LRSD (docket entry #3463, transcript of July 6, 2001 evidentiary hearing). During his cross-examination7 of these two witnesses, counsel for Joshua sought to elicit testimony proving that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with three specific obligations under the Revised Plan: (1) \"Good faith\" implementation of the policies, programs, and procedures described in the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1. l ); (2) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3-5.3.5, 5.4, 5.6.1, and 2.7.1); and (3) implementation of programs, policies, and procedures regarding various aspects of student discipline (sections 2.5 and 2.5.1- 2.5.4). After taking the first two days of testimony, the Court conducted a hearing on July 9, 7This technically was \"direct examination,\" but since the witnesses were associated with an adverse party, it was, in effect, cross-examination. -5- AO 72A 200 I, to schedule the remaining days necessary to complete the evidentiary hearing on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3464, transcript of scheduling conference held on July 9, 2001). Counsel for Joshua, in response to questions from the Court, stated that he believed the LRSD 's three most serious areas of non-compliance under the Revised Plan were failing to remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; continuing a policy of disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions; and failing, in good faith, to properly implement the Revised Plan ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 26- 29). With the agreement of counsel, the Court set aside August 1 and 2 and November 19 and 20 to complete the evidentiary record on these three discrete issues ( docket entry #3464 at pp. 45- 46, 51-52, and 60-61 ). In formulating this schedule, the Court indicated that it would hear six hours of testimony on August 1, November 19, and November 20, and three hours of testimony on August 2. The Court ruled that these twenty-one hours of anticipated testimony would be divided equally between Joshua and the LRSD, so that each side would be allowed ten and onehalf hours to put on their respective cases on the issues of good faith, student achievement, and student discipline (docket entry #3464 at pp. 62-64). Finally, at the close of the July 9 scheduling conference, the Court engaged in the following colloquy with counsel, that makes it clear everyone knew and understood the three issues that would be tried to conclusion during the hearings on August 1-2 and November 19-20: MR. HELLER: But I just want to be sure we have heard Mr. Walker's case before we present ours. THE COURT: Yes, that's correct. That's correct. In other words, and these will be discrete issues, and I say they are discrete. Discipline and achievement, and I agree that there is some linkage there between the two. But those things, achievement particularly, is what is bothering me. -6- A072A (Acn,A / R'J\\ And discipline, maybe Mr. Walker can make me think that discipline ought to be bothering me too, and I guess it is to an extent because of the way the District has presented it. But still, there is some improvement there. MR.WALKER: Here is the other thing. Throughout this whole thing, the concept of good faith is present, and I don't th.ink we are going to have separate sections where we present good faith evidence. Part of what would be presented, as we are presented with Dr. Carnine and Mr. Babbs, is evidence to show that they had no intention of doing what they said they were going to do, and they really did not do it. So, that will be addressing good faith. THE COURT: Well, of course, you are free to do that. I have personally observed that Little Rock, I think, has been much, much better in recent years than it was when I first got the case .... (Docket entry #3464, p. 65, lines 16-25, and p. 66, lines 1-23.) In the August 1, 2001 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua called and examined Dr. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent of the LRSD, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction ( docket entry #3493). At the beginning of the August 2 evidentiary hearing, counsel for Joshua re-examined Dr. Mitchell, and called and examined Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent responsible for handling discipline in alternative education settings, and James Washington, the ombudsperson for the LRSD ( docket entry #3494). During his examination of these four witnesses, counsel for Joshua again sought to elicit testimony regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations related to good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; to improve the academic achievement of African-American students; and to eliminate the disparate treatment of African-American students in disciplinary actions. At the conclusion of the August 2 hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had -7- AO 72A used eight of his allotted ten and one-half hours ohime. The Court made it clear that counsel for Joshua could elect to rest his case and use the remaining two and one-half hours to cross-examine witnesses called by the LRSD or he could forego cross-examination and continue to call witnesses. Joshua's counsel indicated that, after he called a few \"brief' witnesses at the beginning of the November 19 hearing, he intended to rest his case and reserve his remaining time for cross-examination (docket entry #3494, pp. 950-954). At the beginning of the November 19 evidentiary hearing, the Court noted that counsel for Joshua had decided to rest his case on the issues of the LRSD's good faith compliance with implementation of the Revised Plan, the implementation of programs and policies designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, and student discipline (docket entry #3558 at pp. 14-15). After the Court denied its Motion for Directed Verdict on those issues, the LRSD proceeded to call three witnesses: James Washington, Dr. Linda Watson, and Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their respective direct and crossexaminations of Mr. Washington and Dr. Watson on November 19. However, counsel for the LRSD was not able to complete his direct examination of Dr. Lesley (docket entry #3558). On November 20, counsel for the LRSD and Joshua completed their direct and crossexaminations of Dr. Lesley. After counsel for Joshua concluded his cross-examination of Dr. Lesley, he sought to call several \"rebuttal witnesses\" in what he estimated to be his remaining \"25 or so minutes\" of the original ten and one-half hours of time (docket entry #3559, p. 573). Counsel for the LRSD objected and suggested that \"the time left for Mr. Walker is just about zero\" (docket entry #3559, p. 573). -8- A072A The Court resolved this dispute by making the following unequivocal ruling: THE COURT: But I will tell you what I will do, I will give you [Mr. Walker] twenty-five more minutes. Now that's it. (Docket entry #3559 at p. 575, lines 21-23; emphasis added.) Although counsel for Joshua urged the Court to \"keep an open mind on aJ~owing Joshua more time,\" the Court refused to reconsider its ruling. The Court also made it clear that, if counsel for Joshua intended to call members of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") as rebuttal witnesses, their testimony would count against his remaining twenty-five minutes of time (docket entry #3559 at p. 583, lines 9- 12). Thus, at the conclusion of the November20 evidentiary hearing, six days of testimony and hundreds of exhibits had been introduced in connection with what Joshua identified as their three strongest arguments against declaring the LRSD unitary: ( 1) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the \"good faith\" obligations contained in the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; and (3) the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with the obligations in the Revised Plan to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Furthermore, counsel for Joshua and the LRSD had both rested their cases on these three issues, and all that remained was for Joshua's counsel to use his remaining \"twenty-five minutes\" to call rebuttal witnesses.8 On December 11, 2001, the Court conducted a scheduling hearing to discuss issues and 8Counsel for Joshua indicated that these rebuttal witnesses might include the staff of ODM, Dr. Ross, and Dr. Roberts. -9- AO 7'?A witnesses that would be presented during a five-day evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28 (docket entry #3597). At the beginning of the hearing, the Court noted that Joshua had twenty-five minutes of\"true rebuttal\" testimony that remained to be heard on the three discrete issues which had been tried to conclusion during the six previous days of hearings (docket entry #3597 at p. 5). The Court requested that counsel for Joshua identify the issues and witnesses he intended to cover during the upcoming five-day evidentiary hearing. Counsel for Joshua identified the following areas of the Revised Plan which he intended to attack to prove the LRSD was not in substantial compliance: ( 1) extracurricular activities; (2) advanced placement courses; (3) guidance and counseling; (4) the student assignment plan; (5) no middle school evaluation; (6) the Cook School closing; (7) housing desegregation; (8) interdistrict schools and monitoring student recruitment; (9) staffing and funding incentive schools; (10) alternative education; (11) compliance standards; ( 12) desegregation plan modification; and ( 13) the academic achievement gap ( docket entry #3597 at pp. 6-19). Counsel for Joshua estimated it would take three full weeks to put on his case regarding these issues ( docket entry #3597 at p. 19). LRSD's counsel strenuously objected to Joshua expanding their attack on the LRSD's substantial compliance to include essentially every section of the Revised Plan. First, counsel noted that: (a) section 8.2 of the Revised Plan sets forth a detailed procedure for raising compliance issues; and (b) Joshua had failed to utilize that procedure to raise any of the foregoing compliance issues before filing their June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. Similarly, counsel noted that Joshua had never raised any objection to the LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2000 (docket entry #3597 at pp. 21-23). -10- AO 72A /Rev.8/82\\ Second, counsel noted that Joshua was now raising challenges to the LRSD's substantial compliance with sections 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.3--provisions of the Revised Plan that were not challenged in Joshua's June 25, 2001 Opposition to the LRSD's Compliance Report (docket entry #3597 at p. 23). Finally, counsel stated his much different understanding of the purpose for the December 11 scheduling hearing: I thought the purpose of what we were going to do today was to narrow the issues; get this down to some very specific issues, talk about what specific evidence was going to be needed to litigate those issues, and then set some very limited time frames to get the case on a track where the Court and the parties can fulfill their responsibility to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. (Docket entry #3597 at p. 24). In resolving this contentious dispute between counsel regarding the scope of the issues that remained on the question of unitary status, the Court first noted that counsel for Joshua had already presented his strongest evidence on student achievement and student discipline, the \"areas of [the LRSD's] compliance [with the Revised Plan] that he [counsel for Joshua] thought were weakest.\" Next, the Court identified four remaining issues related to unitary status that Joshua would be allowed to cover during the hearing scheduled to begin the week of January 28: (1) advanced placement courses; (2) guidance counseling; (3) extracurricular activities; and ( 4) the LRSD's overall obligation of good faith under the Revised Plan (docket entry #3598 at pp. 31- 32).9 The Court went on to explicitly describe how it intended to conduct the final five days of 9The Court concluded that advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities were issues closely related to the issue of improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Therefore, the Court indicated that Joshua would be allowed to present evidence on student achievement but only for the limited purpose of explaining how the LRSD's policies, programs, and procedures regarding advanced placement courses, -11- AO 72A ,n .... . . n ,n,..,\\ evidentiary hearings: THE COURT: But this is what I would like to do. Instead of giving you three weeks, I would like to, which I don't have, by the way, what I would like to do is give careful attention to achievement, guidance and counseling, and related matters such as advanced placement and extracurricular the week ofJanuary 28th . Again, I think good faith is always an issue and you can always bring that up. But I would like to confine vour focus to those matters and then, I would like to make a ruling, I would like to have everything on those matters submitted to the Court, so that I can make a ruling with respect to them. And if necessary, give the Eighth Circuit an opportunity to give us further guidance. MR. WALKER: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: I would just prefer that. And I think that that would be something the District would like. It might bring this matter to closure more quickly, one way or the other. (Docket entry #3597 at pp. 36-37; emphasis added). II. Where We Go From Here 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 LRSD 's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 1 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. This means I must now address only two issues still hanging fire. guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities had adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. 'From my review of the transcripts, I hardly see why it should take five days for the additional evidence (two days would seem to be time aplenty), but Judge Wright has dealt with this case for a long time, and I will defer to her call. -12- A072A /Oou 0 / Ct ? \\ First, at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001 hearing, Judge Wright allowed Joshua twenty-five minutes to put on \"true rebuttal\" testimony relevant to three discrete issues: ( 1) the LRSD's good faith implementation of the Revised Plan; (2) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) the LRSD's implementation of policies, programs, and procedures designed to insure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Having never been one to place too fine a point on time-keeping, I will allow Joshua thirty full minutes to present \"true rebuttal\" testimony directed at these three precise issues. After this brief rebuttal testimony has been received, the record will be closed on the issue of the LRSD's substantial compliance with those sections of the Revised Plan related to the academic achievement of African-American students (sections 2.7, 2.7.1, 3.4, 5.1 , 5.2, 5.2. 1, 5.2.l(a)-(l), 5.2.2, 5.2.2(a)-(h), 5.2.3, 5.2.3(a)-(f), 5.3, 5.3.1-5 .3.5, 5.4, and 5.6.1) and student discipline (sections 2.5, 2.5 .1-2.5.4). As early as practical in June, I intend to schedule a short evidentiary hearing to allow counsel for Joshua to present this \"true rebuttal\" testimony. I would also welcome a stipulation or other arrangement that would allow this extremely brief and limited rebuttal evidence to go into the record, without the need for a formal hearing. Second, I need to establish the basic ground rules for the final evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the LRSD has achieved unitary status. Before beginning the six days of evidentiary hearings last year on Joshua's opposition to the LRSD's request for unitary status, Joshua's counsel agreed to arrange his evidence so that he presented his strongest arguments against unitary status first. Thus, I must conclude that the record now contains all of Joshua's strongest evidence ofLRSD's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations under -13- I I AO 72A /Rev.A/A?\\ the Revised Plan (sections 2.1 and 2.1.1). Nevertheless, consistent with Judge Wright's ruling during the December 11,2001 hearing, the Court will allow Joshua to present additional evidence of the LRSD 's failure to substantially comply with its good faith obligations but only to the extent that: (a) it relates directlv to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities, and student achievement; and (b) it does not duplicate testimony already presented by Joshua on the issue of good faith. Similarly, in putting on evidence regarding the LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations under the Revised Plan related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities, counsel for Joshua may present evidence regarding how those issues adversely affected the academic achievement of African-American students. However, the Court will not allow counsel for Joshua to introduce any new or cumulative evidence on the issue of academic achievement, a subject that has already been thoroughly and extensively covered by Joshua's presentation of their strongest evidence during last year's six days of evidentiary hearings. The Court will enter a Scheduling Order within ten days setting aside up to five days (probably in June and/or July) to conclude the evidentiary record on the remaining factual issues relevant to the question of whether the LRSD is entitled to a declaration ofunitary status. Prior to entering that Order, the Court will conduct a telephone conference with counsel for all parties to set the dates during which this evidentiary hearing will take place. \u0026lt;)Tn DATED this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ,_, _\"TH RULE 58 ANO/OR~ fR_;: () ~o/10/0 a-~ Gj1 ~ UNITEb ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE -14- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al MAY 2 0 2002 KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER u.frJJR1~PuRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS This is to confirm a telephone conference will be held today, Tuesday, May 14, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. Counsel are to carefully review the Court's Order of May 9, 2002 before the telephone conference. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2002. .u J d,. ln\\n  ,-~:1~,-f-.( UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE ord.LRSD 599 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., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT c- 1\\STER!~\\ CJiST9'CT ADV ~r--1c; Ac; ,M~Y 1 5 2002 RECEIVED MAY 1 7 2002 Off\\CE Of DESEGREG~l\\Ott MOttllORlltG Yesterday, on May 14, 2002, an on-the-record telephone conference was held with the lawyers for all the parties. During the telephone conference the following schedule was adopted: l. A final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School District's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status was set to commence on Monday, July 22, 2002 at 8:30 a.m.; and to conclude on Friday, July 26 at 5:30 p.m . The time will be divided as follows: a. At 8:30 a.m. on Monday, July 22 the Joshua intervenors will be given 30 minutes within which to present rebuttal evidence pertaining to the three issues tried virtually to conclusion during previous hearings before Judge Wright; b. -2- The remaining forty hours of trial time will be divided equally (twenty hours and twenty hours) between the Joshua intervenors and the Little Rock School District. The Joshua intervenors must notify the Court, on or before July 9, 2002 of the amount of time, out of their twenty hours, that they wish to reserve to present rebuttal evidence. 2. I expect to take testimony from 8:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Monday, July 22 (with an hour for lunch); and from 8:30 to 5:30 p.m. on each of the following four days (with an hour for lunch each day). 3. On or before June 21, 2002 the parties are directed to identify the name of each of their witnesses, the date and time each witness will be called, and the anticipated time it will take for direct examination of each witness. A detailed statement must be included, of each witness 's anticipated testimony on each issue the witness will address. 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21, 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre - marked and exchanged on or before June 21, 2002 will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances . S. U. S. Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray will conduct a hearing commencing at 8:30 a.m. on July 9, 2002. At that hearing, all exhibits will be presented, and pre-marked references will be two-blocked ; the witness lists and accompanying witness statements mentioned above will be submitted ; and evidentiary objections and motions in Ii mine will be submitted (it is likely that -3- 1 will later rule on most of the evidentiary objections and motions in limine, - although Judge Ray may issue some rulings during his hearing). 4. By 5 :00 p.m. on Monday, August 19, 2002 the parties must file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the Little Rock School Districts Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status. 5. It is re-emphasized that the parties will be required to present evidence within the limits set in my order of Thursday, May 9. 6. Counsel are instructed to interview and prepare witnesses for rifle - shot presentations. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 12.~ay of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITI-J?.llj-E 58 AND/~~)~ FRCP ON 1/J\"-/-Dr'sy_.~~--- RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 May 21, 2002 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Dennis Hansen Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: DennisH@ag.state.ar.us Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counsel: Enclosed please find a copy a Motion for Substitution of Counsel in the above-styled case, which I am filing with the Court today. Very truly yours, 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 Cover Letter May 21, 2002 DRH/dpn Enclosure cc: Ray Simon Scott Smith Q:\\Civil\\MarkH\\Open Files\\deseg\\2002\\ c orrespondence ~ ~ Ll~~~iJ  R Hansen DAessnimstsa nt A ttome y General \\ltr cover 5-2 I -02drh.doc IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAY 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF lltS6RE6AT!ON MOillTORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Comes now the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), to state for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel the following: 1. Mark A. Hagemeier recently resigned from his position with the Office of the Attorney General. 2. Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General will be representing the defendant, ADE in this matter. 3. All correspondence and filings should be forwarded to the attention of Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock AR, 72201. Wherefore, the defense respectfully requests that Dennis R. Hansen be substituted as the attorney ofrecord for defendant ADE Respectfully submitted, MARK PRYOR, Attorney General By ~ L(-i44t. Dennis R. Hansen #97225 Deputy Attorney General 200 Catlett-Prien Tower 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-1315 Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, do hereby certify that I have served the foreg~ument by mailing a copy of same by US. Mail, postage prepaid, thisj}s+ day of , 2002, to the following: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dennis R. Hansen AO 72A (Rev.8/82) FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUiPf\"i D!Srn:c--T \\CH' '~IC: l'I C: FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS M1\\Y 2 8 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. ORDER JAMES W. 8y: _________ _ DEP.CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Pending before the Court is Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602). In that Motion, Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education asks that Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen be substituted for Mark A. Hagemeier as its counsel of record in this matter because Mr. Hagemeier no longer works for the Attorney General 's Office. The Court finds good cause for granting the Motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion for Substitution of Counsel (docket entry #3602) is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to substituted Assistant Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen as the attorney of record for Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Dated this~ day of May, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE .. :, c-1 ,~d e.!.: 53 t/:l.:,/OP~7~(~)i,:RCP 5'/17/01/ -- ---~ ---- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT f\u0026lt;,'.':' ? t 11- ? EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS1~  t.LL,. WESTERN DIVISION By:MES W. McCORMACI(, CLER/( 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 RECEIVED MAY 3 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DE;-:, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status This memorandum responds to the LRSD's \"Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" filed on March 15, 2001. Introduction During the 1997-98 school year, representatives of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD completed the proposed \" [ LRSD] Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" They then filed a joint motion seeking its approval by the court on January 21, 1998. On April 10, 1998, the court (Judge Susan Webber Wright) approved the revised plan. The plan provided for a three-year term assuming substantial and good faith compliance with its terms. [Sections 2.1, 9, and 11] 1 The plan further provided for \"[t]he 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year [to] 1 .E....,__g_,_, Sturgis v. Skosos, 977 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Ark. 1998) (interpret contract not by emphasizing one clause to the exclusion of others, \"but from the entire context of the agreement\"). 1 be a transition period in preparation for implementation of [the] Revised plan.\" [Section 10] Section 11 of the revised plan provides, in part: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 2 The LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (cited as March 2000 report at--) and a Compliance Report on March 15, 2001 (cited as March 2001 report at--). On June 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an \"[O]pposition to [the] Little Rock School District's Compliance Report.\" The court (Judge Wright) conducted 5 1-2 days of hearings concerning the LRSD's effort to secure release from court supervision [i.e., on July 5-6, 2001, August 1-2, 2001, and November 19-20, 2001). Thereafter, on March 15, 2002, the LRSD filed its motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status. This memorandum responds to the LRSD motion, with regard to the subjects addressed in the hearings conducted by Judge Wright: Revised Plan Sections 2 .1 ( general requirement of good faith compliance); achievement) ; 2.5-2.5.4 ( student discipline); 2.7.1 (program evaluation) ; 3 2.7 2.12.2 (academic (general 2 See Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 3-9 (comment by Judge Wright on the limited information on student discipline set forth in the March 2001 report). 3 While Section 2.7.1 refers to program assessment, the terms assessment and evaluation are, at times, used interchangeably. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 13-17 (Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley)] This memorandum shows, in detail, that LRSD acted on the premise that Section 2.7.1 addressed program evaluation, until, in 2 requirement of activities \"for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate .. ); 6.0 to 6.7 (generally applicable LRSD Compliance program). This memorandum also addresses the obligation of the LRSD to narrow the racial achievement gap, as required by the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" See revised plan, Section l(a. ); Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24 (recognition of obligation by former Superintendent Les Carnine); Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (recognition of obligation by Associate Superintendent Leslie). It is necessary to consider in connection with the LRSD motion and this response that the Joshua Intervenors' have the opportunity to submit some additional evidence. See Order by Judge William R. Wilson, May 9, 2002 at 13 (30 minutes of rebuttal), at 14 (during additional hearings, Joshua Intervenors may offer certain evidence bearing upon \"good faith obligations\" and \"the academic achievement of African-American students\"). Subsequent to the filing of the LRSD motion, this court scheduled a hearing in July 2002 on several issues. Order, May 9, 2002, at 14. Intervenors, therefore, do not respond to LRSD' s argument that as to issues other than those addressed here, \"the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings.\" [ LRSD Mem. - the hearings, it faced the task of defending its performance in this sphere. See,~, Sturgis v. Skokos, supra, 977 S.W.2d at 223 ( \"If there is an ambiguity, a court will accord considerable weight to the construction the parties themselves give to it, evidenced by subsequent statements, acts and conduct.\" [citation omitted]) 3 Brief, at 34] This memorandum begins with a summary of the evidence. The summary, in the form of proposed findings of fact, encompasses the issues addressed here by the Joshua Intervenors: Student Discipline (at 4-19), Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of African-American Students (at 19-36), Racial Disparities in Achievement ( at 37-40), and Program Evaluation ( at 40-46) . An argument relying upon the factual summaries follows (at 47). The argument is not lengthy, the court's principal task seemingly being the examination of the facts in the light of a concept of \"substantial compliance. 11  Intervenors' fact.ual presentation shows in each instance why substantial compliance is lacking, in the light of the concept of substantial compliance advanced. Results on the Arkansas Benchmark Examinations are set forth as an appendix.' Summary of the Evidence I. Student Discipline A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan (1.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the matter of student discipline are the following. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and \\ or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to school discipline. 2.5.1. The LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set  Intervenors dispute, in the argument, LRSD' s repetitive suggestion [....,Jl_,_, Mem.-Brief at 2, 34] that termination of jurisdiction would be appropriate if this court found substantial noncompliance, but somehow also was without doubt as to the system's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Substantial compliance and future fealty to the Constitution are, in fact, separate components of the exit formula. 4 forth in the Student Rights and responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2. 5. 2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; .. 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriata disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of indi victuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 5 6. 7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The LRSD Interim Compliance Report (March 15, 2000) ( 2.) The LRSD \"Interim Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2000) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on student discipline, at pages 13-17. (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: adoption of policies (a general policy on non-discriminatibn and policies on discipline records); revision of student handbooks; creation of \"an online student discipline reporting system for each school building ... \"; staff development; a decrease in suspensions and expulsions in the LRSD; the sampling of parent, student, community and teacher attitudes on safety and order in the schools; and expansion of the number of alternative learning sites. [at 13-15] (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: the adoption of general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities; directing principals to comply with the handbook; informing students and parents of standards; and employing the ombudsman. [at 15] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: adoption of standards; in-service training; and implementation by the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline (Dr. Linda Watson). [at 15] (d) the text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) 6 addresses: the filling of the position in February 1999 (half-way through the first year of the plan); establishment of goals for the ombudsman's work, including \"[i]nvestigat[ing] parent and student complaints of alleged race-based mistreatment and ... work[ing] to achieve equitable solutions\"; increasing community awareness of the ombudsman and monthly reports on his work. [at 15-16] (e) the text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) addresses: the general process for developing such- plans and an exit process for students eligible to return to a home school from the \"Alternative Learning Center.\" [at 16-17] The totality of the text on behavior modification plans is as follows: Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases refereed to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teacher, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan as warranted. [at 16] (3.) The March 2000 Interim Compliance Report omits coverage of Section 2.12.2 (investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies). [See report at 82-86] (4.) The portion of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report concerning Plan Sections 6. 0 through 6. 7 ( general desegregation compliance program) does not discuss school discipline. [at 127-29] C. The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) (5.) The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on school discipline, at pages 24-26. 7 (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: decreases in the numbers of suspensions and expulsion system-wide and for black and white students; the decrease in the number of students committing offenses; the sampling of community and teacher attitudes on school issues (positive views on safety and pupils' feelings on \"belonging at schools\"). [at 24-25] The report also includes this text [at 24]: The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to AfricanAmerican students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. The Report describes no particular action directed at the continuing racial disparity. (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: school board approval of - general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities. [at 25] ( c) The text concerning Section 2. 5. 2 ( purging students' discipline records) addresses: asserted compliance with this provision by school principals and the \"Student Hearing Office.\" [at 25] (d) The text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) addresses [ at 25-26]: training received by the ombudsman; steps taken to increase public awareness of the ombudsman's services; and a description of the ombudsman's activities, which reads as follows: Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to have been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 250 parents or students and provided 8 services related to over 450 incidents. In addition, the ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are underway to expand these activities to include other schools. (e) The text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) contains only a general description of the asserted process for developing such plans. Contrary to other instances, there is no reference to a school board policy or the numbers of students and schools involved. [at 26] (6.) The part of the March 2001 Compliance Report addressing Section 2 .12. 2 ( investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing needed remedies) contains only six lines of text. This text cites the school board's adoption of the general policy on racial disparities in programs and activities and then provides in part: \"In implementing its obligations under the revised plan, the District has addressed racial disparities in ... discipline (Section 2.5) ... 165] 5 \" [at (7.) The March 2001 Compliance Report omits mention of Plan Sections 6.0 through 6.7 (general desegregation compliance program), which had been discussed in only a cursory fashion in the March 2000 report (see paragraph 4 above). [at i-iii] 5 Section 11 of the revised plan for the LRSD provided for release of court jurisdiction \"provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised plan.\" It added: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with [the] Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 9 D. The Evidence Presented to the Court (8.) The LRSD March 2000 and March 2001 reports and Dr. Linda Watson's testimony stressed reduction in the overall number of suspensions and expulsions. [March 2000, at 13-14; March 2001, at 24; Tr., 11-19-01, at 48, 13-21; at 55, 22 to 56, 15; at 83, 14-21 (Dr. Watson)] 6 However, the data set forth in ex 743, introduced by LRSD, revealed that in 2000-2001, the third year of the plan, while white student suspensions\\expulsions continued to drop (69 fewer, 11.2 percent lower than 1999-2000), black student suspensions\\expulsions increased in that school year (496 more, 12.3 percent higher than 1999-2000). Suspension Index by Year\")] [CX 743 (\"Discipline ( 9.) While asserting that suspensions and expulsions decreased in number, the LRSD acknowledged that racial disparity continued. [March 2001 report, at 24); Watson testimony, 11-19-01, at 83, 14- 21; at 113, 14 to 114, 1; ex 743] 7 (10.) The LRSD reports in March of 2000 [at 13-15] and 2001 [ at 24-25] presented no data showing discipline by school. The 6 In LRSD's affirmative presentation, LRSD identified Dr. Linda Watson as responsible for implementation of Sections 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 of the revised plan. [Tr., 11-19-01, 'at 25, 16-19] 7 On June 14, 2000, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) issued a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. It sets forth data by school, by sex and race, on the number of students subjected to one or more suspensions. This allowed the LRSD to identify the extent of overrepresentation of black students in discipline in a meaningful manner, and to single out schools with atypical disparities. See Appendix at 5. The LRSD chose to ignore the ODM report. See para. 19, infra. 10 reports set forth no data by sex and race [id.], with the omission of data on disciplining of black males being particularly significant [Tr., 8-2-01, at 892, 5-9 (Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell); Tr., 11-19-01, at 124, 4-14; at 132, 12-24 (Dr. Watson); ex 583, at 125 (ODM report noting black males' being suspended \"at significantly higher rates than any other subgroup\"); see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 23 to 891, 13 (Judge Wright)] (11.) The discipline process at the school level involves referrals of students by teachers and imposition of sanctions by administrators. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 151, 155] (12.) The March 2000 and 2001 LRSD reports show no evidence of the development of criteria to identify schools, teachers or administrators involved in atypical racial disparities in discipline [g__,__g_,_, departing from system averages, or in the case of a teacher or administrator in a particular school, departing from the pattern for colleagues in that school). [March 2000 report, at 13-15; March 2001 report, at 24-25] Assistant Superintendent Watson identified no such criteria in her testimony on November 19, 2001. (13.) The LRSD has the ability, by computer, to identify particular teachers, vice principals, and principals, . whose referrals or sanctions evidence atypical racial disparities. This has not been done systematically, if at all. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 123, 7-16; 128, 6-18; 149, 10 to 150, 25; 155, 7-12; 161, 4-13]] (14.) After acknowledging the absence of such disaggregation of data, Dr. Linda Watson testified as follows: Q Okay. So, it wouldn't be possible to correct it, if it was not disaggregated and in writing, would it? 11 A. I guess not sir. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 149, 23-25] (15.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. All right. Is there a group within the District or made up of teachers, administrators, support staff, that are helping to identify and to be responsible for correcting the disparate impact, discipline in the District? A. Not to my knowledge. [Tr. 11-19-01, at 162, 18-23] ( 16. ) Dr. Watson agreed that she \" [has] not prepared a monitoring report with respect to disparities in d~scipline.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114, 4-7] Asked \"[d]id you make a written analysis of discipline data to reveal any potentially systemic problems,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"No sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 142, 8-10] Asked whether former Superintendent Les Carnine or Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs had \"prepare[d] a causation analysis of discipline disparities,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"Not to my - knowledge no, sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 130, 1-4] Faced with the question, \"[s]o, there are no plans by which to reduce disparate impact of black students?,\" Dr. Watson, the person responsible for implementation of the discipline sections of the revised plan, testified: \"Not, to my knowledge.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, 135, 6-8; see also id. at 112, 9-17] (17.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. Have you made any recommendations regarding how to address the gross over representation of black boys, in the disciplinary process? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you not publicly stated that there needs to be some more attention devoted to dealing with this problem, because apparently there is a fear factor associated with black boys? A. Yes. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 132, 12-20] 12 (18.) The following testimony of Dr. Watson is particularly significant in view of LRSD's acknowledgement of continuing racial disparities in school discipline and her own recognition of the particular issue regarding black male students. Q. Other than what you have told me, what is the Little Rock School district doing to -- and what you told Mr. Walker, what is the Little Rock School District doing, in addition, to correct the disparity based upon race? A. I can't say that we are looking at it based on race. We are looking at the number of suspensions. We are trying to offer programs that African-American students, as well as other students, to participate in. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 163, 16-25; emphasis added] (19.) The Office of Desegregation Monitoring distributed on June 14, 2000 a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. [CX 583] This report set forth discipline statistics by race, by school, for the school years 1993-94 through 1998-99, including the numbers of student in each school receiving one or more sanctions. 8 The report also contained seven recommendations. [CX 583, at 127] Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding the ODM report. Q. Now, did you ever meet with the ODM after the ODM issued its report for the purpose of either better understanding their recommendations or for seeking ways to implement their recommendations? A. No, I did not, but I sure wanted to. Q. Why didn't you? 8 The data by student, by race, allows a comparison of the proportions of black and white students in a school receiving suspension or expulsion as a form of discipline. The comparisons in the individual schools can then be compared to those of other schools, allowing identification of schools with atypical disparities. 13 A. Because I took -- once the report came out. we discussed it in the cabinet. and it was the decision at that time that we would not respond or do anything. Q. That's right. Dr. Carnine told you not to meet with them, didn't he. A. At that time, yes he did. Q. I see. A. That was the decision that came from cabinet, we were not going to address the issues. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 177, 11-25; emphasis added] ( 20.) Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding behavior modification plans. Q. [Y]ou have indicated that you have responsibility under 2.5.4 for creating Behavior Modification Plans, is that correct? A. Yes, I did say that. Q. How many such plans did you develop each year? A. I couldn't say how many I developed. Q. You never had -- you do not have a report, which documents the number you have developed? A. No sir, I do not. Q. What is the evidence to show that it was actually done? A. In cases that I heard in student hearings, when we needed to do Behavior Modification Plans, there were times that we stopped and did the plans there in the office. Q. I see. A. There were times that I referred them back to the schools, Pupil Services Team, to do Behavior Modification Plans. Q. I see. Do you agree with this statement? The district does not have any document compiling the total number of Behavior Modification Plans or the race or gender of students for whom Behavior Modification Plans have been prepared? A. I agree. I do not have the numbers. 14 Q. All right. Do you agree with this statement? The District does not have nay document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" A. I would agree . [Tr., 11-19-01, at 135, 9 to 136, 12] ( 21.) The testimony revealed that Dr. Watson had a vast array of responsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be e xpected to accomplish . The evidence also reveals that Dr. Watson, an \"assistant superintendent,\" sought additional personnel, that her plea did not bear fruit, and that additional personnel were needed to address racial disparity in discipline in individual schools. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114 , 4 to 119, 8; see also id. at 142, 25 to 146, 23 (example of type of effort needed to work with one school)] . E. Findings Concerning Overall Compliance with the Plan ( 2 2 . ) Section 2. 5 of the revised plan is devoid of any statement that the requisite \"programs, policies and\\or procedures\" to be \"implement [ ed]\" pursuant to this section are limited to those set forth in Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4. of the plan. Ms. Linda Watson's affirmative testimony presented by LRSD was not limited to the subject matter of these four sections. [.E....,__g__._, Tr., 11-19-01, at 27-30] The text of Sections 2.12.2, 6 . 1, 6.2, 6. 3 , 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 of the revised plan show that these sections are relevant to the subject of racial disparities in school discipline . Moreover, the text of these sections contains no indication that their content as to the discipline sphere can be satisfied merely by the fulfillment of the requirements of Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2. 5. 3, and 2.5.4. of the plan (assuming t hat LRSD substantially 15 complied with each of these sections). (23.) There is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3 of the revised plan. However, the record does establish a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5 and 2.5.4. (24.) The record establishes a lack of substantial compliance with Section 2.5 for the following reasons. (a) The LRSD report of March 2000 [ at 13, 15] and the testimony of Dr . Linda Watson [Tr., 11-91-01, at 27-28] identified LRSD Policies AC, ACB, JB and JBA as steps implementing Section 2.5 of the revised plan. [ CX 719 (cited standards)] However, these standards merely restate the LRSD's existing obligation to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000dd( 4)(a) (barring racial discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance) . . Moreover, these standards do not even mention disciplining of students. [CX 719] 9 (b) Dr. Watson's outlines for training of principals omitted the matter of disparate discipline generally and discipline of black males [ ex 672-76; Tr., 11-19-01 at 122, 14 to 123, 6], despite awareness of these issues. See paras. 9, 10. (c) The LRSD was aware of continuing racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline generally and in particular with 9 LRSD regulation JBA-R implements policy JBA. It is noteworthy that this regulation addresses explicitly each school's obligations to insure nondiscrimination in \"programs and activities,\" with three required strategies, but does not mention discipline. [CX 719] 16 regard to black male students. See paras. 9, 10. The system had the capability by computer of identifying schools with atypical racial disparities in discipline; the system also had the capability of identifying teachers whose referrals and administrators whose discipline actions were marked by atypical racial disparity. See paras. 9 \u0026amp; n. 6 , 13 . The LRSD did not implement any programs , policies and\\or procedures geared specifically to such schools or personnel. See paras. 12-18. (25.) The LRSD's discussions of \"behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior\" [ Section 2. 5. 4 J , and other evidence on this topic, show mere lip service to the concept, rather than \"work[ing] with students and their parents to develop\" such plans. See paras. 2(e), 5(e), 20; compare paras. 5(d) and 5(e) (in the March 2001 report, discussion of the ombudsman contains statistics on parent contacts and matters worked on, while coverage of behavior modification plans is limited to general description of process for developing plans). (26.) LRSD's failure to comply with Section 2.12.2 as applied to discipline is obvious. The system was aware of racial disparity and had the capability of isolating schools and staff with atypical problems. The system did not investigate the matter; and, therefore, could not develop remedies. The system did not commit sufficient personnel to the issue. See paras. 9, 10, 12-18. Indeed, Dr. Linda Watson, the official responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan [Tr., 11-19-01, at 25, 16-19], and the system's major witness on the topic, testified: \"I can't say 17 that we are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" [Tr., 11-19-01 at 163, 21-25] (27.) Similarly, LRSD's failure to comply with Part 6 of the revised plan (\"LRSO Compliance Program\"), as applied to discipline, is obvious. Again, LRSD was aware of the general pattern of discipline disparity, and the particular issue about black male students. The system did not adopt standards to identify schools and staff with atypical discipline patterns. It did not analyze available data based upon such standards. It did not inform staff of such standards and procedures. It did not enforce such standards, or require remedial actions to address problems identified. Neither the superintendent, nor his designees oversaw compliance with any such standards and procedures. See Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 and paras. 9, 10, 12-18, 21. (28.) Finally, LRSD's performance with respect to student discipline does not evidence substantial compliance with its agreement to \"in good faith exercise its best efforts to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD. \" [Section 2.1] The evidence supporting this conclusion includes the following. [i] The district did not commit adequate personnel to the issue of discipline. See para. 21. [ii] Despite knowledge of the continuing racial disparity in discipline, the system, did not study the causes, or identify and follow-up on schools and personnel with atypical disparate patterns. See paras. 9, 10, 12- 18. [iii] Or. Watson testified, as noted, that \"I can't say that we 18 are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" See para. 18. [iv] Upon receipt of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring report on school discipline in June 2000, the decision of the superintendent and his cabinet was \"at that time ... we would not respond or do anything\"; \" issues.\" See para. 19. . we were not going to address the II. Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of AfricanAmerican Students A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan ( 29.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the subject of improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students are the following. 2.7. 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. 2. 7 .1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals 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. * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. * * * SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 19 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance; 6. 2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent; 6. 3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees; 6. 4. Utilization of moni taring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance; ... 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance; and 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. B. The Shortcomings in the Educations Afforded Black Students and the Standards Adopted to Address the Problem ( 3 o. ) Two aspects of Section 2. 7 of the revised plan are particularly noteworthy. First. The LRSD obligation is not limited to \"design [ ing]\" programs and other initiatives; rather, the initiatives must also be \"implement[ed.\" [See Tr., 8-1-01, at 686- 87 (Leslie)] Second. The programs and other initiatives \"[include] but [are] not limited to [those in] Section 5 of [the] revised plan.\" (31.) Dr. Leslie Carnine became Superintendent of the LRSD effective with the 1997-98 school year. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 341-42] During testimony on November 19, 2001, when he had served for four years, Dr. Carnine provided the following overview. Mr. Walker, when we put the new plan together, if you will remember, and in fact -- if I can find the document, and I think we might be able to present it, but I said at the time 20 that it was my statement to you that I firmly believed that if we remediated the education of black students and made a real effort. where I felt that it had been missing, that by that very remediation effort of increasing their achievement, we would help to, in fact minimize the disparity between black and white achievement. Now, that statement is the one that I have made continuously over the past four years, I have said nothing different, not that I am not -- I am certainly concerned about that disparity issue. It has been my life's work. But my point is the only way you can do it is not worry about the disparity, but let's just teach kids. And I didn't feel that we were doing that good a job. I think we are doing a better job now. Are we where we need to be? Not absolutely. but we are getting there .... [At 450- 51; emphasis added] (32.) During the 1998-99 school year, year one of the new plan, LRSD staff under the direction of Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley, who joined the staff at the end of June 1998 [Tr. 8- 1-01, at 670, 18-19], undertook a comprehensive review of the educational program, including students' test scores. This review yielded, ultimately, the view that the curriculum for grades K-12 in language arts (including literacy), mathematics, science and social studies needed to be replaced. [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 550, 10-14] ( 33.) The review of programs during 1998-99 examined the development of early literacy skills in the light of results for 'LRSD students on the Arkansas Grade 4 Benchmark Examination (Spring 1998 and Spring 1999) 1 0 and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) 10 Arkansas has adopted curriculum frameworks for language arts, mathematics and other subjects. For each framework, there are benchmarks, identifying, in grade level bands, knowledge and skills which it is hoped students will master. The State requires local districts to give benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics in grades four and eight. These instruments are 21 (Grade 3, Fall 1998) .ii On the state-mandated examination, 42 percent of LRSD students performed at the lowest level ( \"Below Basic\") and only 30 percent of students at the levels deemed acceptable. Significantly, \"[f]ifty-three percent of AfricanAmerican grade 4 students performed at the 'Below Basic' level, compared to 20 percent of white students.\" The results for grade 3 on the nationally normed SAT 9 reading test were consistent. \"In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the 'Proficient' or 'Advanced' levels ... , again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3.\" [CX 703, Doc. 1 at 12-13]= ( 34.) The federal educational program known as \"Title I\" originated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It provides financial assistance to local school districts to support help for low achieving students. The March 2000 report noted LRSD's receipt of $4.2 million in Title I funds, annually. designed to show a student's level of mastery of benchmarks appropriate to the students' grade level. The results are reported in terms of four levels (below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced). The State's goal is that all students reach at least the level of proficient. [March 2001 report, at 56; Tr., 8-1-01, at 692, 18 to 694, 9; \"[LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" March 15, 2002, 'Tab 5, at 9 J ii For a description of the SAT 9, see the March 2001 report, at 56. i 2 The exhibit did not discuss SAT 9 scores by race. The record contains SAT 9 reading scores by race for grade 5 for 1998-99 (but not grade 3 scores). On \"total reading\" the average percentile score for black LRSD fifth grade students was 27 and that for LRSD white students 69. [CX 741] 22 Almost all LRSD schools received some Title I funds in recent years. \"The goal of Title I is to provide supports so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the [local] District.\" [March 2000 report at 47, 68; see 20 u.s.c. Sec. 2701] ( 35.) The review of instructional programs during 1998-99 encompassed Title I programs. The March 2000 interim report described some of the findings as follows: An analysis of performance data found that most Title I schools had not been meeting their improvement goals. The staff found that part of the problem was the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of District-established literacy and math curriculum. These problems were corrected through the new Pre-K Literacy Plan and the new NSF mathematics curriculum. Another part of the problem was the lack of alignment between the Title I programs and the reaular curricula in literacy and mathematics. [At 68; emphasis added] Dr. Leslie provided consistent testimony about the findings of the review. [Tr., 81-01-01, at 700-02 (noting use of \"pull out programs\" which \"even result in the child missing the instruction on the things that are going to be tested\")] (36.) Testimony by Dr. Lesley revealed the consequences for Title I participants, disproportionately black youth [Tr., 8-1-01, at 702], of the lack of alignment of the content of the Title I program \"and the regular curricula in literacy and mathematics.\" . Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to learn that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer the most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge and skill anywhere else .... [Tr., 11-19-01, at 199-200] (37.) The perverse and ironic impact of the content of the 23 Title I program on LRSD's black students has been substantial. The program is longstanding (i.e., originated in 1965) and in the relevant time frame has supported activities in almost all Little Rock schools. The low scores of LRSD's black middle school and high school students on the state benchmark and the SAT 9 tests are no doubt due, in part, to their isolation from important parts of the curriculum by Title I programs (which were supposed to help them attain the knowledge and skills which LRSD identified as important for all students). (38.) Dr. Lesley also identified general problems in the math curriculum, prior to its revision. \"The old curriculum really focused on two strands of the [State] standards, and now we have a curriculum that encompasses all six strands, which include such things like statistics and problem solving and geometry and algebra, even for young children. So, that has been a big change for teachers.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 272, 6-11] ( 39.) The information gleaned about the content of the educational program and student outcomes on standardized tests led the LRSD leadership to conclude that a complete overhaul of the educational program was necessary. [CX 703, Doc.1 at 12-13] This overhaul involved many areas. For example, the March 2000 report described the changes needed to implement the PreK-3 literacy plan, alone, as follows: \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standards-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional 24 development, effective interventions, and parent involvement.\" [At 97] The restructuring also involved mathematics, science and social studies curricula. See para. 32; see also Dr. Leslie's testimony regarding the magnitude of the attempt to completely overhaul the educational program. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 198, 23 to 207,12] (40.) In the March 2000 and March 2001 reports, the LRSD identified many policies, practices and procedures, some general and some specific, as designed to fulfill the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan. Sub-paragraphs (a)-(e) describe central elements of the LRSD commitments. (a) \"The District developed in 1997-98 and 1998-99 comprehensive curriculum content standards, plus grade-level and course benchmarks in K-12 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, curriculum maps were constructed for each area to ensure that the LRSD standards were aligned with the state's curriculum frameworks and assessments.\" [March 2000 report, at 45; Tr., 11-20-01, at 513, 17-21] (b) Staff members developed durihg 1998-99 and the Board of directors approved in June 1999 a PreK-3 literacy plan. The March 2000 report stated that \"PreK-3 literacy is a major, if not the major priority of LRSD . \" \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standard-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional development. effective interventions, and parent involvement. [March 2000 report, at 96-99; see also id. at 25 90 [assessment to \"[identify] [students] for early interventions\"] (c) The March 2001 report states: Implementation of standards-based, inquiry-based instruction in mathematics and science, intensive and sustained professional development for teachers, and multiple assessment measures have been put in place to ensure improvement. New standards-based curricula in mathematics in grades K-8 and in science for grades 1-9 have been adopted. The curricula for other grade levels are being adapted locally to reflect a standards-based, inquiry-centered approach. The number of K-12 mathematics teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new mathematics program increased from 215 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 515 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. The number of K-12 science teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new science program increased from 50 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 243 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. Another 108 mathematics teachers and 4 5 3 science teachers began implementing part of the standards-based program during 2000-2001. All teachers in mathematics and science are scheduled to fully implement the standards-based program during the 2001-02 school year. [At 115] (d) Dr. Leslie testified that \"interventions\" for students whose achievement is not at the standards deemed desirable is a vitally important part of the new literacy program. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 679,14 to 681, 15] Interventions (and remediation) are a point of emphasis in the LRSD reports of March 2000 and 200113 and in policies adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors to which they refer (summarized in next paragraph). This emphasis is in keeping with Section 2. 7 of the revised plan which requires designing and implementing actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students ... \" (emphasis added). (e) The LRSD adopted the following relevant standards. 13 See March 2000 report at 43, 44, 4 7, 48, 49; March 2001 report at 51-52, 62, 64, 125-26. 26 ( i) The Board of Education adopted Policy IHBDA ( \"Remedial Instruction\") on July 22, 1999, after year one of the plan. It requires \"the district and each school\" to make \"comprehensive and aggressive early intervention efforts, especially in PreK-3 reading and mathematics, with continuing support through complementary remediation efforts on an as-needed basis to promote and sustain the standard levels of achievement.\" \"Intervention\\remediation efforts of the Little Rock School District will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives  11 [CX 719, Policy IHBA] (ii) The Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R \"Intervention\\remediation\") on October 21, 1999, after the start of year two of the plan. It provides, in part: Assistance will be provided for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading\\language arts. Intervention\\remedial programs include re-teaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, summer school, and special courses offered within the school day in addition to the core instruction. Program designs may differ from school to school, depending upon funding sources, needs of students, and decisions made by the Campus Leadership Team. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] (iii) The School Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R2 (\"Student Academic Improvement Plan\" (SAIP)) on August 24, 2000, after year two of the plan, in compliance with Act 999 of 1999. It requires teachers \"of English language arts and mathematics\" at each level to prepare individual SAIPs for \"each student who [ i] is not performing on grade level (K-4); [ii] is not 'proficient' on any part of the state's benchmark examinations - primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle school (grade 8); and [iii] is not scoring 'proficient' on End-of-Course examinations in literacy, 27 geometry, and\\or algebra.\" \"School and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, require remediation or intervention. 11 The regulation further provides: The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as a- Second language, Title I, gifted programs, etc.) identification of areas of need, specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] C. Deficiencies in Implementation Establishing a Lack of Substantial Compliance with Secs. 2.7.1. 2.12.2 \u0026amp; Part 6.0 (41.) The content of paragraphs (42) through (57) supra shows that the deficiencies in implementation of the Section 2.7 activities identified by the LRSD are such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2. 7 is not warranted. The LRSD's failure to substantially comply with Section 2.12.2 and Part 6 of the revised plan, as to the area of academic achievement, is also apparent. (42.) The LRSD Board of Directors approved the PreK-3 Literacy plan in June 1999, after year one of the revised plan. [March 2000 report, at 99] ( 4 3. ) Teachers did not receive \"their copies of the new curriculum documents\" until \"August 1999 11 the start of the school year (and the start of the second year of the revised plan). [March 2000 report at 45] \"All teachers did not begin the [1999- 2000] year with the training to implement the new curriculum, teaching strategies, and materials. Training occurred throughout 28 the year, and some teachers were not trained at all in 1999-2000.\" [March 2001 report, at 91 ] (44 . ) LRSD has emphasized that the training and retaining of teachers is a vitally important component of the new educational programs. (a) Dr. Leslie testified as follows: It [professional development] is probably the most important thing that we have done, and we've spent all of our treasury on that. A great deal of time, a great deal of energy, a great deal of money, trying to be sure that every teacher has at least a minimum level of training in several areas, because one of the things that was overwhelming about the plan and its implementation is that -- particularly for elementary teachers, is that they had to learn new curriculum, they had to learn new materials, they had to learn new instructional strategies, and many of them had to change some belief systems, in order to make it work. And so, it takes more than a one workshop approach to get all that done. It has to be followed up over and over and over. And so, that is one reason we have emphasized it so much. The Board has allocated every dime they could to that effort over the last three years. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 207, 13 to 208, 8] (b) The importance of teacher training was described as follows in the \"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the Pre-K-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001\" (October 2001) by Dr. Lesley and other LRSD staff. 1  The most expensive - and the most important - piece of the cost of any program implementation designed to improve student achievement is always the cost of professional develop-ment . . 'In study after study, it is the quality of the teacher not variation in curriculum materials that is identified as the critical factor in effective instruction. That is not to say that materials are wholly unimportant, but that investing in teacher development has a better result than 14 This document appears at Tab 4 of the \" [ LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status.\" 29 investing in curriculum materials.' ... [At 96] (45.) Nevertheless, the \"Year 2 Evaluation\" above identified serious shortcomings in the teacher training needed to implement the Pre-K-3 literacy program. The report states that 12 days of \"Ella training\"have been offered to K-2 teachers during the last two years. [At 97] It then sets forth a table, by school, showing the amounts of training for K-2 teachers. The average number of days per school is 4.65 across all levels. Moreover, in 15 of the 35 schools listed, the average number of days is 2.4 or fewer days. [At 98] The report states: From the table above, one can infer that implementation is, in general still at a low level since the number of days of ELLA training experienced by teachers is 4.65 of the 12 possible days available. Kindergarten teachers have the highest level of participation, then grade 1 and then grade 2. Kindergarten, probably not coincidentally, is the highest performing grade level. [At 98] (46.) The LRSD employed lead teachers in the areas of math and science to promote the change from the traditional math and science curriculum to the new curriculum. Among other things, the lead teachers used an observation form to assess \"the implementation level and quality of implementation of the teachers\\schools in their cluster.\" LRSD reported the survey results for 1999-2000 in the March 2001 report. The report explains implementation codes as follows: \"3 - fully implementing standards-based; 2 - partially implementing standards-based; 1 - minimally implementing standards based; O - not implementing standards based.\" The average score for 33 sites was 2.2. However, there were 10 scores of 1.8 or lower. The report explains scores for quality of implementation as 30 follows: \"4 - excellent; 3 - good; 2 - fair; 1 - poor.\" The average score for quality of implementation was 2.6 for 32 sites. The report characterizes the results as follows: The District's average implementation score was 2.2, which represents a beginning shift from partial implementation to full implementation of a standards-based curriculum. The District's average quality score was 2.6, which represents a trend toward quality instruction in math and science. Based on the data provided, the District is in an active transition from the traditional curriculum to standards-based curriculum in both quality of implementation and the quality of implementation. See March 15, 2001 report at 122-24 (reports for elementary schools and middle schools only). (47.) The LRSD has also reported on the implementation of the new math and science curricula for the 2000-01 school year. Based upon reports by lead teachers, the average implementation score was 2. 4 ( on a scale of 0 to 3) and the average quality of implementation score 2.7 (on a scale of 1 to 4). Unlike 1999-2000, in 2000-01 LRSD reported only district averages and not scores by school. [See \"Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement - Annual Progress Report for 2000-2001,\" Tab 5 to LRSD memorandum brief previously cited] ( 48.) The LRSD did not implement the new social studies curriculum until 2001-02, after year three of the plan. [Tr., 11-20-01, at 427, 2-3; compare para. 40(a) above] Indeed, Dr. Leslie seemingly testified at one point that the entire new curriculum was implemented for the first time in the \"Fall of 2000 11 [Tr., 11-20-01, at 518, 22-25], rather than in the Fall of 1999. Compare para. 43. 31 (49.) The October 2001 report on the Pre-K-3 literacy program after year two, previously cited, states that the study \"does not include . . an examination  of the different forms of inter-ventions. II [Tab 4, at 83] Paralleling this admission, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Lesley, and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of SAIPs, or other interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards (see para. 40(e)). [Tr., 8-1-01, at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (Mitchell); at 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] It is obvious from test results that black students are more likely to need interventions. See para. 33. (50.) As part of the new Pre-K-3 literacy curriculum, LRSD teachers have administered in the Fall and the Spring in grades K-2 the \"Developmental Reading Assessment.\" The results have varied sharply from school to school and even within the same school from year to year. Dr. Leslie attributed these variations to \"the degree to which teachers had implemented the new curriculum.\" [Tr., 8-1-01, at 731, 21 to 732, 2] (51.) LRSD staff have recognized that there has been insufficient monitoring of classrooms to evaluate whether the new PreK-3 literacy curriculum is actually being implemented. Lack of a monitoring plan through classroom observations to document the level of implementation is a problem. This weakness not only resulted in a late identification of poor implementation in some cases, but it was also a weakness in evaluating the consistency of program implementation. See Mem. Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of 32 Unitary Status (March 15, 2002), Tab 4, at 105. (52.) As noted, the LRSD is required to administer, each year in April, State Benchmark Examinations in literacy and mathematics to fourth and eighth graders. The State's goal is that all students reach the levels of proficient or advanced on each examination, which measure mastery of knowledge and skills, identified as important for each student to master. Results by race for the school years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 appear in the appendix, infra; see also note 10, para. 33, supra (description of Benchmark Examinations). (53.) On August 1, 2001, Dr. Lesley testified, in part, about the 1998-99 benchmark results in math and literacy for black fourth graders (administered in April 1999). Only 8 percent of these black youth attained the levels of proficient\\advanced in math and only 20 percent in literacy. Dr. Lesley's testimony included the following content. Q. Now, in terms of the 1998-'99 results for Little Rock black students in the fourth grade on math, eight percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. Let me look, check for sure. In '98-99, yes, AfricanAmerican students were eight proficient. Q. Eight percent, okay, proficient. A. At or above proficient. Q. Correct. So that's basically one out of 12 of the students who have been tested, is that right, roughly? A. Eight percent, uh-huh. Q. Now, you regarded that as a serious problem, correct? A. Certainly. 33 o. And a major part of your explanation for that result is that those students. in terms of the curriculum they had received. had not been exposed to what you call many of the strands of the benchmarks for math. right? A. Yes. Q. For students to show mastery on a test like that, they need to be exposed to the material, right? A. Absolutely. Q. Now, in terms of black fourth graders in the literacy, 20 percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? A. I want to check and make sure I don't misrepresent. In '98- '99, yes, 20 percent. Q. Did you see that as a serious problem? A. Of course. o. And do you think that. again. that part of the reason for that was that the curriculum those students had had not covered many of the strands in the state benchmarks for literacy? A. Yes. [Tr., 9-1-01, at 694, 8 to 695, 21; emphasis added] (54.) As noted, state benchmark exam results are also available for 1999-00 and 2000-01 (year three of the new plan). The results for 1999-2000 show some improvement. However, in 2000-01 (April 2001 test), the proportions of LRSD black youth attaining the levels of proficient\\advanced were -- 4th grade literacy 19%; 4th grade math 14%; 8th grade literacy 18%; and 8th grade math only 49.c I 0. See tables infra in appendix. These results are on a par with the results for 1998-99, which evidenced to Dr. Lesley that black youth had not been exposed to curricula covering all of the gradeappropriate strands in the state curriculum frameworks. To be fair to the LRSD, no child will have had five years of exposure to the 34 new curricula (if it is implemented) until those children tested in 2003-04 (April 2004) . 1 5 (55 . ) The results on the April 2001 State Benchmark Examinations and the other evidence reveal that LRSD had not implemented for the black students tested: (a) a curriculum marked by alignment with the state benchmarks; (b) teaching by teachers with the training which LRSD identified as an essential part of its program pursuant to Section 2. 7; or ( c) the interventions for students experiencing difficulties, also identified by LRSD as an essential facet of its program for compliance with Section 2.7. (56.) Scores on State Benchmark Examinations as of April 1999 for African-American students evidenced a situation where they had not been exposed to the content of the curriculum. See para. 53. The longstanding, massive Title I program was organized in a manner detracting from, rather than, as required by federal law, contributing to low-achieving students (disproportionately black) mastery of system instructional goals for all pupils. See paras . 34-37. The LRSD identified the need for a complete overhaul of the K-12 educational program in core courses, with implementation not commencing until year two of the plan. See paras. 32, 39, 40(a). The overhaul required change in many aspects of system operation. There were shortcomings in teacher in-service training, a pivotal area, as well as in implementation of the new math and science curricula. See paras. 43-47. There was admittedly no systematic 1 5 A student in kindergarten in 1999-2000, who makes normal progress, will reach the fourth grade and take the grade four benchmark examinations in April of the 2003-04 school year. 35 review of actual implementation of interventions for those students not doing well, another area of high importance, particularly for African-American youth given their achievement levels. See para. 49. Results of State Benchmark Examinations administered in April 2001 again established the lack of deli very of curriculum to African-American students. See para. 54. Finally, the SAT 9 tests for 2001 evidenced some backsliding in terms of addressing racial disparities in achievement. See para. 61(b), infra (SAT 9 results). ( 57.) In light of the condition of education for black students in the LRSD at the outset of the revised plan, the program changes which the LRSD identified as necessary, and the lack of implementation of key facets of those changes (as shown by evidence about those initiatives and test results), the court finds that the LRSD did not substantially comply with the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement certain programs, policies and\\or procedures. (58.) There was also a lack of substantial compliance in this area with Sections 2.12.2 and Sections 6.1 - 6.7, generally applicable elements of the revised plan. The LRSD did not adopt, and therefore could not follow-up on, \"compliance standards\" [Section 6.1]. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 671, 21 to 675, 6 (Dr. Lesley)] The LRSD was of the view that it need not address the racial gap in achievement, as such; the staff therefore did not seek to devise a remedy directed to decreasing this \"racial [disparity]\" as such, violating Section 2.12.2 of the revised plan. See Part III of this memorandum, infra. 36 III. Racial Disparities in Achievement (59.) The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides for the continuation in force of \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)] Testifying after being superintendent of schools for four years, Dr. Les Carnine agreed that he understood that the agreement with the State required the LRSD to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24] See also at 378, 2-7 [\"Mr. Walker: Well, Your Honor, let me say this. We have the State agreement - The Court (Judge Wright) That's a settlement agreement, that's correct, about the achievement disparities, about reducing that, that's true.\"]; Tr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (Dr. Leslie) . i 6 (60.) The LRSD did not \"[develop] any particular program by which to remediate achievement disparity between African-American students and other students. . \"during Dr. Carnine's tenure as superintendent. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 374, 25 to 375, 1-4 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 622, 18 to 623, 9 (Associate Superintendent Mitchell); see also Tr. 7-6-01, at 375, 14 Carnine)] to 3 7 9 , 18 (Dr. (61.) The results of the State Benchmark Examinations and the Stanford Achievement Test show, at best, continuing massive disparities in achievement between black and white students and, at \"See also ex 594, at 11 [\"The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap.\"] 37 worst, increasing disparities during the term of the revised plan. (a) On the Benchmark Examinations: [ i J the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 3.1 times (1998-99), 2.2 times (1999-2000), and 3.3 times (2000-01); [ii] the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 6. 6 times ( 1998-99), 4 .1 times ( 1999-2000), and 3. 7 times ( 2000-01); [ iii J the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy exceeded the like proportion for black students by 4.1 times (2000-01); and [iv] the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics exceeded the like proportion for black students by 10.3 times (2000-01). See appendix infra. (b) Results on the nationally normed SAT 9 test for LRSD students for the period 1996-97 through 2001-02 seemingly reflect an increase in the achievement gap. Twenty-one comparisons are possible in the data which covers grades 5, 7, and 10. The following comparisons are for the first (1996-97) and last {2001- 02) years of the six year period. [i] The gap between the average percentile scores of black and white youth increased in 20 of 21 instances; [ii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for black students increased in 6 instances, remained the same in 6 instances, and declined in 9 instances; [iii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for white students increased in 17 38 instances, remained the same in 2 instances, and declined in 2 instances. [CX 741, at 1] ( 62.) The LRSD has administered the Developmental Reading Assessment (ORA) in the Fall and Spring in grades K-2 beginning in 1999-2000. The LRSD maintains that the results show a narrowing of the achievement gap in reading.[lhg_._, Tr., 11-20-01, at 409, 21 to 410, 4] However, test results on the ORA depend on a classroom teacher's judgments on his\\her students' abilities to read and to comprehend a series of progressively more difficult reading selections. In the spring, the teacher is in part judging her\\his own performance. The LRSD has recognized this issue: \"One caution, therefore, interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his\\her own students' performance, and bias may be possible.\" [Year Two Report on the PreK-3 reading program, Tab 4 at 21] There is yet to be like progress, if any progress, on either the State Benchmark Examination or the SAT 9. See also Tr., 8-1-01, at 721, 12 to 726, 12 (lack of a predicate for LRSD to use ORA to evaluate achievement gap by race)] (63.) The LRSD has acknowledged problems prior to the effort to completely overhaul the K-12 program, which would harm black students disproportionately and exacerbate the achievement gap. The LRSD curriculum did not cover various strands of the State benchmarks. The Title I program emphasized \"pull out programs\" which isolated participants, disproportionately black, from the mainstream curriculum. See paragraphs 31, 34-38, 53-54. (64.) The LRSD has not substantially complied with its 39 obligation under Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement the activities which it identified \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students , \" See paragraphs 41-55. ( 65.) The LRSD has not provided a predicate to end court jurisdiction with regard to its voluntary undertaking \"to narrow\" the achievement gap between black and white students. IV. Program Evaluation (66.) Three aspects of Section 2.7.1 (quoted above at page 19) are noteworthy. First. In the first sentence and the second sentence, the words \"assess\" and \"assessment\" refer to programs (rather than to assessment of students). Second. The assessment obligation is not limited to the programs described in Part 5 of the revised plan, but instead pertains to those \"implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 11 which as noted is not confined to the programs in Part 5 of the plan. Third. The assessment obligation is annual in nature. ( 67.) Asked during the hearing on November 19, 2001, \"to discuss the difference between an assessment and an evaluation,\" Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley began by testifying \"[w] ell, I think part of the confusion has been that we have sometimes used those terms interchangeably \" [Tr., at 242, 13-17] The evidence shows that prior to the hearings on whether or not LRSD had attained unitary status, the LRSD had indicated repeatedly, by its actions, that compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 required the carrying out of program evaluations. Indeed, Dr. Lesley agreed with 40 this proposition, when called as a witness by the Joshua Intervenors. The relevant evidence is summarized in sub-paragraphs (a) to ( e) . (a) LRSD issued a \"Compliance Plan for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" on June 10, 1999. The text concerning Section 2.7.1. identified relevant \"Board Policies\" to include those on \"Testing Programs\" and \"Program Evaluation.\" The text on \"Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.\") relevant to Section 2.7.1 provided as follows: 1. Program Evaluation Agenda - in progress 2. Title I Restructuring Plan provides for Title I evaluation 3. National Science Foundation Project provides for program evaluation 4. Application for waiver from State or District rules includes an evaluation design 5. In progress: second-year evaluation of Success for All Thus, as seen, every sub-paragraph referred to \"evaluation.\" [See ex 544, at 11-12] (b) In a June 1999 position paper on the PreK-3 literacy program LRSD staff wrote: PreK-3 Literacy Program evaluation. In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. (CX 703, Doc. 1, at 44; emphasis added] See also Tr., 11-19-01, at 278, 19-21 (Dr. Leslie). (c) The material in the March 2000 interim compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 refers to \"[i]mprovements in the assessment of academic programs.\" [At 51] It also cites, inter 41 alia, the \"Program Evaluation Plan\" [ at 51], a draft policy on \"Curriculum Evaluation\" [ at 52], and \" [ t ]he 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda August 1999.\" [At 53] approved by the Board of Education in (d) The material in the March 2001 compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 is headed \"Program Evaluation\" -- a title which is repeated at a later point in the discussion. The text (page 148 of the report) includes at least nine other references to \"evaluation.\" (e) During her testimony on August 1, 2001, Dr. Leslie agreed that the District had interpreted 2.7.1, which does not use the word evaluation, as nevertheless raising the topic of program evaluation. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 705, 24 to 707, 12; see also Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright noting that LRSD \"voluntarily undertook .. obligation to have program evaluations of the programs that are designed to enhance African-American achievement\"] (68.) The LRSD took a different tact in seeking to defend its implementation of Section 2.7.1, at the hearing on November 19, 2001. Dr. Lesley cited testing of students and other \"assessment\" activities as satisfying Section 2.7.1. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 18- 22; 243, 6 to 249, 14; see also at 253, 22 to 254, 6 (colloquy between Judge Wright and LRSD counsel) ] 17 The content of paragraphs 1 7 Dr. Lesley distinguished such assessment from a \"program evaluation.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 23 to 243, 5] She described a program evaluation as \"more long term\" [at 242, 23] -- a feature congruent with the reference in Section 2.7.1 to an activity \"after each year. \"In contrast, her discussion of \"assessment'' as 42 (a) through (h) supra provide the likely explanation for the LRSD's seeking to defend its performance by discussion of assessment rather than evaluation. The deficiencies in evaluation activities have been such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1 is not warranted. (a) The LRSD Board of Directors did not \"[adopt\"] its Policy IL on \"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\" until March 22, 2001 near the end of year three of plan implementation. [CX 575] As noted, Section 2.7.1 refers to assessments (evaluations) \"after each year.\" The LRSD \"voluntarily undertook obligation.\" [this] (b) The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation unit (PRE) presented evaluation documents covering four areas to the Board of Education in August 2000. The documents concerned the PreK-3 literacy program, the implementation of middle schools (including the effectiveness of new curriculum in English language arts and science), the effectiveness of the ESL program, and the national Science Foundation project components. The Board of Education tabled the consideration of these documents because they were incomplete and there were no recommendations. [Tr. , 7-6-01, at 362, 24 to 365, 23; at 389, 18 to 392, 18; at 400, 16 to 401, 22 (Superintendent Carnine)] During the three year period of the plan, the LRSD recognized that it did not have the capability, inter-encompassing teachers \"us[ing] the data that they have available on a daily basis to decide what to do next for one chid, for a group of children or for the whole class\" [at 245, 12-20] was incongruent with the provision in 2.7.1. 43 nally, to prepare the required evaluations. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 400, 2-19 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 710, 3 to 713, 21 (Dr. Lesley); at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 334, 5-14 ; at 495, 16 to 496, 3 (Dr. Lesley)] (c) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-1-01, at 709, 3 to 710, 8 (Dr. Lesley); Tr., 11- 20-0l, at 321, 21 to 322, 22; at 472, 25 to 473, 8 (Dr. Lesley)] (d) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the new mathematics and science curricula prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1; Tr., 7-6-01, at 398, 1 to 399, 9; at 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine); Tr., 8-2-01, at 829, 20 to 831, 6; Tr., 11-20-01, at 473, 25 to 476, 14 (Dr. Lesley)] (e) The version of the evaluation of the implementation of the new middle school program prepared during the three-year period was a draft. [CX 577, at 1] (f) The LRSD did not conduct during the three-year period an evaluation of the implementation of the several policies requiring interventions\\remediation for students performing below par. See para. 49. (g) The LRSD identified the summer school program as an important component of its effort \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" [Section 2.7]. [March 2000 report, at 47; March 2001 report, at 62, 125-26] In its March 2001 report, LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated\" the 44 \"Summer School [Program].\" [At 148] However, the evaluation of the summer school program for \"Summer School 2000 11 was only in draft form as of April 5, 2001 and July 17, 2001. [CX 721; Tr., 8-1-01, at 645, 12 to 652, 12 (Assoc. Superintendent Mitchell); Tr., 11-20-01, at 357, 1 to 358, 8] (h) In the March 15, 2001 report the LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated ... [11] programs .... 11 [At 148] This assertion is misleading. [aa] The \"Extended Years Report\" existed in draft form as of July 13, 2001; there is a version of the report dated September 28, 2001. [CX 720] [bb] The LRSD presented only drafts of the \"Summer School\" report. [CX 721] [cc] There is an evaluation of the \"Hippy Program\" dated July 1999. [CX 722] [ dd J The report on the \"Charter School\" is dated June 25, 2001; it was written by an external consultant. [CX 723] [ee] The report on \"Campus Leadership Teams\" contains survey data dated May 11, 2001 and lists of participants, without further discussion. [CX 724] [ff] There is an evaluation of the ESL program dated October 30, 2000. [CX 725] [gg] There is a draft evaluation on the \"Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College\" dated September 22, 2000. [CX 726] 45 [hh] With regard to the \"Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program,\" there is a request for data from an external source and some data, not an evaluation. [CX 727; Tr., 11-20-01, at 361, 17 to 362, 5] [ii] With regard to \"Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary),\" there is a collection of information provided by the \"Site Facilitator\" on November 1, 2001, not an evaluation. [CX 728; Tr., 11-20-01, at 362, 7-17] [ j j] With regard to \"Collaborative Action Team (CAT),\" there is a collection of survey data and some comments, of anonymous authorship, dated November 6, 2001. [CX 729; Tr., 11-20-01, at 363, 10-24] [kk] Regarding \"Vital Link,\" there is a brief, undated evaluation of anonymous authorship. [CX 730] (67.) The LRSD did not substantially comply with the program evaluation obligation which it voluntarily assumed by virtue of Section 2. 7 .1. The LRSD did not evaluate the academic programs which it implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year to determine their effectiveness in improving African-American achievement and to use the results to make program changes. Indeed, it has not fulfilled this agreement after three years. In fact, the LRSD tacitly acknowledged its failure by seeking to recast the nature of its obligation during the hearings. 46 Argument A. Introduction and the Standard for Substantial Compliance In this matter, the court is called upon to \"[apply] the terms of a contract between [ two of] the parties ... \"[LRSD v. PCSSD, li, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8th Cir. 1996)] -- the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" Knight v. Pulaski County Special School District, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). Put another way, \"the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaskui County Special School District, No. 96-2047, Slip Opinion, Dec. 15, 1997, at 6. In sum, this court is called upon to apply the parties ' agreement in the form of the revised plan, which left in place among other things \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)J The revised plan identifies the standards which this court is to apply to determine, for example, whether the LRSD fulfilled its obligations regarding student discipline and program evaluation, and whether it is entitled to a \"release from court supervision.\" That other systems face less onerous criteriaa is irrelevant. LRSD is held to the obligations which it \"voluntarily undertook\" [see Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright referring to \"obligation to have program evaluations\"); they form \"the law of [this] case.\" 1 8 See LRSD Me.-Brief, at 18-19, 28. 47 Construed as an entirety [seen. 1 at 1, supra], the terms of the agreement support the construction that the court's jurisdiction continues as to an area in which a party meets its burden of proof of showing \"that LRSD has [not] substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised Plan.\" [Section 11] In this light, a principal task for this court is to define the term \"[substantial compliance].\" The opinion in Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 1998) provides guidance on this topic. 19 There, the district court had dissolved a consent decree, merely asserting in a conclusory manner that \"the defendants have conscientiously and in good faith complied substantially with its terms.\" [At 1199] In explaining the inadequacy of the district court's terse ruling, the appellate court wrote, in part: The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are still at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the 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. [At 1199; emphasis added] The Cody court focuses on two related matter. These are, first, whether any violations are \"inconsequential\" in the light of 19 Cody is, however, largely distinguishable; \"[t]he consent decree did not state the time of its duration.\" See 139 F.3d at 1198. 48 the parties' overall performance and, second, whether the particular violations, \"serious\" matters. given their subject matter, involve The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit twice addressed the meaning of \"substantial compliance\" in the context of appeals from judgments of civil contempt. See Fortin v. Com'r of Mass. Dept. of Public Welfare, 692 F.2d 790 (1982) and Morales-Feliciano v. Parole Bd. of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 887 F.2d 1 (1989) (Judge Breyer). These decisions are also helpful. In Fortin, the court wrote [692 F.2d at 795]: Finally, no particular percentage of compliance can be a safe-harbor figure, transferable .from one context to another. Like 'reasonableness,' ... 'substantiality' must depend on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the interest at stake and the degree to which non-compliance affects that interest. In the present case, the interest at stake - entitlement to subsistence-level benefits - is great . , making the consequences of failure to comply quite serious. The district court properly weighed the seriousness of the harm . in considering the substantiality of the Department's compliance .... [citations omitted] The court also considered the duration of noncompliance. Id. at 796. The Morales-Feliciano court followed the Fortin standard. See 887 F.2d at 4-5. Intervenors next apply these standards to the facts. The argument shows that all of the shortcomings cited in the Intervenors' factual presentation involve substantial noncompliance. Because all areas of noncompliance impinge on and harm the education of youth, an interest of great importance [see Fortin and Morales-Feliciano, supra J, Intervenors address that matter once at the conclusion of the argument. 49 B. Student Discipline In this case involving racial discrimination in public education, the person responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan testified: \"I can't say that we are looking at it based on race.\" See para. 18. Dr. Watson's description of inaction concerning discipline was entirely consistent with her admission. See paras. 12-17. The violation of Section 2.5 was \"serious.\" Cody, supra. The system argues that the revised plan \"did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity.\" [At 28] However, it did require actions \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline . . \" [Sec. 2.5; emphasis added] Compliance would necessarily require scrutiny of disparity to determine whether it originated in discrimination in any schools. In any event, the LRSD plainly assumed this obligation in Section 2.12.2. See para. 26. Lastly, there are also obvious and serious violations of Section 2.1 (good faith efforts) and Part 6 (compliance program). See paras. 27-28. The LRSD merely accepted disparate discipline as a fact of life. That tact may be open to other school systems. See LRSD Mem. -Brief, at 28. However, the LRSD pledged to implement the revised plan in good faith. The plan became, therefore, \"the law of this case.\" The (behavior failure to implement the modification plans) provisions can not of be Section 2. 5. 4 dismissed as \"inconsequential.\" The March 2001 report listed 4,274 suspensions 50 of black pupils in 1999-2000. [At 24] There was a need for such plans; the LRSD merely gave \"lip service\" to the concept. Para. 25. C. Improving and Remediating the Achievement of Black Students The LRSD pledged not only to design, but also to implement actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [Section 2.7] \"[T]he circumstances of [this] case ... \"[Fortin.supra] highlight the centrality of this pledge. The evidence shows that at the time that the parties drafted the revised plan and its implementation began, LRSD polices and practices isolated black students, disproportionately, from the curriculum content LRSD identified as important for all students. This practice included the operation of the Title I program -- a mode of operation diametrically opposed to the requirements of federal law. See paras. 31-38, 53. The LRSD determined, essentially, that it needed to replace its curriculum and that this step would fulfil its Section 2.7 obligation to the plaintiff class. Intervenors factual presentation shows that implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by LRSD (training of teachers for the new literacy curriculum, implementation of the new math-science and social studies curricula, provision of interventions to students [mostly black youth J not performing well, and moni taring of classrooms. See paras. 32, 43-51. Indeed, State Benchmark Examination results in April 2001 revealed that the vast majority of black pupils in grades 4 and 8 continued to show signs of isolation from the curriculum content deemed essential by the State and the LRSD in 51 math and language arts. See paras. 52-55. These shortcomings in compliance obviously involved \"serious\" and not \"inconsequential\" matters. Cody, supra. D. Racial Disparities in Achievement Former Superintendent Carnine, Associate Superintendent Lesley, and Judge Wright recognized the continuing requirement of an effort to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. See paragraph 59. LRSD did not argue during the hearing that it could not narrow the achievement gap. It argued that its Section 2.7 activities would do so -- and that it was doing so in the area of early grade literacy. See Tr., 7-6-01, at 375, 14 to 379, 18 (Dr. Carnine); see para. 62. The LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy achievement disparity between black and white pupils [see para. 60]; there have been, as noted, serious shortcomings in its implementation of the strategies to overhaul the educational program, K-12, which were to improve black achievement. The results of State benchmark and SAT 9 testing provide evidence that the educations of countless African-American students in the system have been tainted by isolation from the mainstream curriculum. See paras. 53-54, 61. The LRSD had promised in the prior plan to deal with achievement disparity. [At 1. para. BJ Manifestly, a curriculum isolating black students from core content was not the way to make progress in this sphere. The failures to address the achievement gap, as such, and to implement major parts of the reforms encompassed in Section 2.7 are 52 \"serious\" shortcomings. E. Program Evaluation The LRSD elected voluntarily to make a major commitment which it understood to involve program evaluation until such time as it determined that it could not show substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1, as so construed. Para. 67. The commitment encompasses not only evaluating the programs designed to benefit black students' achievement \"after each year,\" but also making changes if programs prove to be ineffective. Se    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\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_35","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":["2002-04","2002-05"],"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/35"],"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.\n\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR 3 o 2002 OFACEOF 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General -y{\\~~~ ~--~~ MARK A. HAGEME~ #94127 Assistant Attorney Gen~ 11 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS 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 April 30, 2002 Based on the. infqrm~tlpr,je'~y~\\labi'~ ifM~r~IiI~:i:ilJliii'Q~\n::lhi':A.. q~!ctila{~:~\ntR\nJ Equalization Funding fo'fFY 01/02, sLibjecftq][~ijpdic~djustrn:i3ht:: 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) 8 . Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;f,~~~ii,ai~~l~ll~1~~@:~:,vct1~ifli~~~arch'3JJ'~ma.2J'JR~:'6.:B~~aI~Ja'm8JgffEX C. Process and distribute State MFPA 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 Qh fy1afchf C:ibci2, disttibutior116f$iate EqU~fi~jfBh f'D/\\dihg fq[FX'.oJ.%02:w\nr~ as.t611ows: LR.SD '~ $38,318,228 NLRS6\\ $20.~69,908 pcssD \u0026lt;$39,767,42b LRSD - $52, 189,~57 NLRSD - $28,093\n868 PCSSD - $54}!08:571 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 April 30, 2002 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at March31\n2a02 for FY 61102, subject to periodic adjustmellts. 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 March 29, 2002 ~Ji~\n~~lf it:ft:.~lt\\~ii~~}~tl!~t~r01\n~~~c~~ati: ~~~~~\n/~-~~~~:iir~1 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 April 30, 2002 Bas~d on t'Re informiitiori avalfable, the A.DE calculated at March 31,-2002 for FY 01/02, subject to periqdic adjustments. . 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 April 30, 2002 Distributions for FY 01/02 at March 31, 2002, totaled $8,136,297. Allotment calculated for FY 01/02 was $11,204,681 subject to periodic adjustments. 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 April 30, 2002 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. 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 April 30, 2002 ois1r1ptvQHt'r8t:Rx::1t1zo2t~t M.~l~rt:~J\nr2002~~tet t,B:::~\n:i?.::rz:~g ,, NLRSD%$1403 839 ss6.::*I\nJs:1It'\n:ij12\nt~'iiWl{~\n~~~j1{m~ia:18? ~x=:6':rza:r~tMarar :f1\n-2602 .=su BJecIt o pehbd12 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 April 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 April 30, 2002 In September 2001 , General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 00/01 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 April 30, 2002 \u0026amp;~~~--\"~,,,1tlll~~~11!!W~ A.tM~i~tt:i\n{J:n,go,02tlb\"~Lfq!Jow.16.H1~am@~bJ~:a@ .r 6fi_fi.,X:,.QJ102_,rni lillll 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 April 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 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 April 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. 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 April 30, 2002 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. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. 2. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of April 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 April 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 April 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of April 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. S. 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 April 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 April 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 April 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. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of April 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 II. MONITORING COM PENSA TORY 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 April 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. 10 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 April 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. 11 IL 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 April 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. 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 April 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. 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 April 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. 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 April 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 fo'r 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. 15 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 April 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 April 30, 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 16 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 April 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. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. 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 April 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 April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E of this report. 17 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 April 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. 18 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 April 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 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 April 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. 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 April 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 1748 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. 22 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 April 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 April 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 April 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 23 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 April 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. 2 4 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 April 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. 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 April 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 AD E'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. 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 April 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 AD E'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. 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 April 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 re vised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 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 April 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. 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 April 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 30 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 April 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 Arkans.a$State soafa.of EdlJciltlBB'l ~vlewed and approveid\"the PMT and its executive sunWnary forthe inOr\\tti.of r,,AafcK\n31 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 April 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. 32 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 April 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. 33 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 April 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 . 34 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 April 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 April 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 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 April 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 April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI F. of this report. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2 Actual as of April 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. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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, ie , 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. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 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 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 ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled . 4 0 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 44 VI REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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 administrc\n3tors 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. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 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. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 (Continued) On December3-7, 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. 49 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 April 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 April 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 val idated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 50 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 April 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 SA T-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. 51 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 April 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. 52 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 April 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. 53 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 April 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. 54 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 April 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. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 30, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of April 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 April 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 55 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 April 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. 56 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 April 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 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. 57 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 April 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. 58 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 April 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 SA T-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. 59 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 April 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. 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 April 30, 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinat\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_1741","title":"District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) stipulations and supporting documents.","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":["2002-04-01"],"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","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. State Board of Education","African Americans--Education","Students","School integration","School districts","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","School administrators","School employees","School enrollment","Teachers","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) stipulations and supporting documents."],"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/1741"],"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":["112 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 \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.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR - 2 2002 OFFICE OF 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 March 1, 2002, the Arkansas Department of Education files the following six (6) agreements: 1. Stipulation for Proposed Order on Voluntary Majority to Minority 2. Transfers dated August 26, 1986; Stipulation for Recommendations Regarding Magnet Schools dated February 16, 1987; 3. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement dated March, 1989; 4. The \"Allen Letter\" dated May 31, 1989; 5. Memorandum of Understanding between the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas; and 6. Agreement between the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas dated March 19, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General #94127 Assistant Attorney Ge al 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 1, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 -- ( IN THE UNIT~D STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DiSTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS DEFENDANTS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and defend~nts Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"), and Arkansas State Board of Education (\"State Board\"), being in agreement on the voluntary majority-to-minority transfers, submit the following stipulations for the proposed order: 1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers: The three districts will cooperate in the development of programs to acquaint parents, guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities. The implementation of majority-to-minority transfer provisions is contingent upon the implementation of all other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court. 2. Eligibility: ADD-1 a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating distiict which district is 50 percent or more black in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. c. Prior to the transfer of any student, the home district shall issue a statement that the transferring student is in good standing. If the student is not in good standing, the student may be permitted to transfer on a provisional basis. 3. Students wishing to transfer shall file applications with their home districts. Applications must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not transfer more than once in any school year. The home district will process all applications and forward copies to the host districts. The home district will furnish its complete file on each student with his/her application. 2 ADD-2 le I I I I II ' f  ;~ ;r_ . ' ~,.-, \\~ ::f; d ._ 4. Transfer assignments will be made subject to av lability of space in schools and grade levels, and the host districts' ability to comply with state standards. 5. The host district shall honor the placement for the students as certified by the home district, which shall be communicated to the parent or guardian prior to transfer. during the first semester, testing, performance, remedial efforts, and consultation indicate that an adjustment of placement should be made, it shall be made after the first If,, semester in consultation with the student's parent or guardian. 6. The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a tran s fer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate a~ their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain students of the host district until they choose to return to the district where they reside. 3 ADD-3 I I I 8. Host districts shall not have the authority to remand tr sfer students to the home district. Host districts shall have the authority to discipline, suspend or expel a transfer student using the same due process procedures applicable to resident students. 9. Once admitted, transfer students will be expected to meet the same general standards, academic and other, as applied to students of the host district. 10. Information about each district's academic and disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available to prospective transfer students on request. This should include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and retention, counseling assistance, grading, student code of conduct, disciplinary action, and suspension and expulsion. 11. The host district shall respond to the educational needs of students without regard to their status as a transfer or resident student. Transfer students shall be eligible and encouraged to participate in all school programs funded and sponsored by the host district (academic, athletic, extra-cuiricular and other) and shall not suffer any disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school activities will be facilitated by the provision where needed of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost of which shall be borne by the State as provided in paragraph 12. 4 ADD-4 I . . '- - I I I I I I \u0026amp;: - - I -~ ~ ~ ' -. ~ 12. The State Board shall pay the full cost of tl 1sporting students opting for interdistrict transfers. However, the State Board shall have the option of (1) ?aying the school districts for transporting the students or (2) contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students with a state operated system. 13. The State Board shall pay the home and host districts ih accordance with the following procedures: a. Each year school di~tricts shall calculate and certify to the State Board of Education their cost per student in regular schools (grades K-12) including all add-ons for special education, TAG, vocational education and other purposes. The cost per student shall include all costs for instruction and support services minus student transportation, food servic8, and restricted federal program costs . (To the extent that the host district does not receive pro-rata increases in restricted federal program costs by hosting transfer students who are eligible to participate in federal programs, the cost per student shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such transfer students.) The State shall pay the costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. Payments made for the current year shall be based on costs for the 5 ADD-5 I - , previous year. The host district shall report each transfer student on forms as required by the State Department of Education. b. Each host district shall esti~ate the full-ti~e equivalent of transfer students and transmit such estimate, along with the names of the students, to C. the State in September of each year when payment begins. A correction will be made in January of each year. Payments shall be made by the State monthly through forward funding to each district based upon the September estimate as corrected . . The .students transferred to the host district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular state aid for the 3istrict. Each home district shall receive from the State for each student who voluntarily transfers fr om his/her home district to a host district one-half of the State aid (table rate) it would have received had the student remained in his/her home district. Information about these students shall be reported on forms as required by the State Department of Education and shall be reported at the same time as the reports are made by the host district. (he students transferred from the home district shall not be counted in the n_u_mber _u_s~d to calculate regular 6 ADD-6 I d. state aid for the home district. All transfers of handicapped students shall be contingent on the availability of appropriate prcg~ams and rescurces, as identified in the IEP, at the host sch0cl. The provisions contained herein do not apply to I magnet schools and programs. I 14. All parties to this stipulation recognize that the present racial balance of the North Little Rock School District approximates that of the entire county and they are desirous of not upsetting that balance through the operation of the Majority to Minority Transfer Program. The parties further recognize that any court approved student assignment plan by any party could be compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfe~ Program caused significant changes in student assignment plans. To avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority transfer students for purposes of student assignment under any court order. Further, all parties recognize that substantial participation in the Majority to Minority program could have the result of creating technical departures from targeted student ratios at one or more schools. All parties agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful operation of the Majority to Minority program shall not give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from targeted ratios constitute 7 ADD-7 ;, violations of any law or regulation and, specifically, shall ne : be urged or suggested as grounds for liability in this or similar litigation. Additionally, any such resulting departu~es from targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to reconstitute or recompose the student body of any affected school. Agreed this 26th day of August, 1986. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NOR ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF DIS EDUCATION (l~ \u0026lt;~ 2258L 8 370 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT prised 28o/o of the membership in extracu ricular activities. PCSSD plan, Appen G. An affirmative recruitment plan will e implemented to remedy underreprese tation in activities where it occurs. PC SD Plan, Appendix H. The foregoing proposals of the desegregation plan represent not nly a turn in the right direction, but also significant progress toward achieving unitary school district. While much rem ns to be done, much has been accompli ed. Accordingly, this portion of the PC SD desegregation plan is hereby appro d. School \u0026amp; Program Carver-Basic Skills Math-Science Williams-Basic Skills Booker-Arts Gibbs-Foreign Langu ge/ International udies Mann-Math-Sciences Arts Parkview-Arts-Perf rming Arts Total The curriculum emphasize the magn theme and all magnet students must f ly participate in magnet courses. As we as the magnet theme, all magnet school will have strong academically- oriented curricula. New magnets r expansion of magnets already existing may be provided for in subsequent sch ol years beginning 1988-89 under the pro sions of the Order of September 3, 19 . Any party may present applications or a magnet school or program not la r than the beginning of each school year preceeding the proposed year of implem tation. The Committee's decision and recommendation shall be submitted to the parties no later than N ovember 15. The MRC shall make its recommendat  n to the Court not later than De- 15. IMPLEMENTATION parties propose that the District Co rt order the implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet schools for the 1 7-1988 school year. The host district all provide to the MRC and to the parties EXHIBIT A STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOLS The undersigned parties have agreed to make the following described recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee for its consideration in formulating its recommendation regarding magnet schools. LOCATIONS AND THEMES The parties have agreed to recommend the following magnet school locations and programs: Grade K-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 7-9 10-12 Target Enrollment 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 its implementation timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the Court. FINANCING The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State to pay one-half () of the actual costs of the construction or renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state aid. and one-half () the cost of educating the magnet students attending those schools. It is understood that any district which does not provide a student to fill an allocated seat, and said seat is not occupied by any other student, will be required to pay to the host district as its full liability for said unfilled seat the per child cost of the host district's debt service payment, both principal and interest, for the construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet program. The host district will provide separate accounting and budgeting information regarding the magnet program to the Magnet Review Committee for review. ~ ' =- EX .H l B J.. t, ,IT A : RECOMMENDA- 1ING MAGNET OLS rties have agreed to scribed recommendaiview Committee for rmulating its recommagnet schools. ND THEMES $reed to recommend school locations and ;et Enrollment 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 1 - at the time a bmitted to the Court. TCING , the financing formuYiagnet Review Com; held on January 29 formulas require the :) of the actual costs renovation of magnet ~ customary state aid cost of educating the mding those schools. .t any district which 1dent to fill an allocat- 1t is not occupied by ill be required to pay .s its full liability for per child cost of the .ervice payment, both ;, for the construction schools in the magnet district will provide and budgeting infor e A net program to ~ ttee for review. LITILE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 371 Cite as 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) INTERDISTRICT served for the shadow area in the host TRANSPORTATION PLAN district. The remaining seventy-five per The State Board of Education remains centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated committed to underwriting the entire actu- to each of the three districts in proportion al cost of transporting magnet and M-to-M to that district's percentage of county-wide transfer students, which includes the cost students at each school level (elementary, of transporting these students for extra- junior high, or senior high). At the elemencurricular activities. The districts agree tary level each district shall allocate its that transportation of magnet/M-to-M stu- seats in proportion to the racial ratio dents should be performed utilizing mea- present in such district at the elementary sures which are most cost efficient. The level. At the secondary level, each district interdistrict transportation plan shall not shall allocate ail its seats on the basis of be used as a means to seek compensation 50% black, 50% non-black. However, the for additional transportation vehicles un- total number of seats assigned to the less such vehicles are directly necessary North Little Rock School District shall not because of the interdistrict transportation exceed 475 seats with no more than 100 plan. New full -sized school buses pur- seats being allocated to the North Little chased in order to transport magnet/M- Rock School District from Parkview. to-M students will be added to the total It is understood that seat allocations will transportation fleet costs and applied on a not be made by district to a particular pro rata basis to the transportation of mag- school, but only by elementary, junior high net/M-to-M students. The cost of any oth- and senior high level. Therefore, a particuer vehicles purchased to transport isolated Jar district will be permitted to use its magnet/M-to-M students will be prorated allocated seats in accordance with the deaccording to their actual use in transport- sires of its students subject to space limitaing magnet/M-to-M students. Each dis- tions in particular magnet schools and the trict agrees to separately account for the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If costs of transporting magnet/M-to-M stu- there is oversubscription among the disdents and to make those records fully avail- tricts by race, grade or school each district able to representatives of the State Depart- may make a recommendation to the MRC ment of Education at any reasonable time. for its approval regarding actual distribu- The parties agree that the Interdistrict tion of seats. The three districts agree Transportation Plan for both magnet that each district will establish an open schools and M-to-M transfers will be admin- enrollment policy for magnet schools and istered by an Interdistrict Transportation will be permitted to determine how children Authority (ITA). The ITA shall be com- will be selected for the magnet seats alloposed of the Transportation Director or cated to each district pursuant to that poliother designee of each district and a repre- cy. This provision shall not prohibit the sentative of the State. The parties agree establishment of geographic preference arthat any conflict may be determined by a eas where appropriate. U.S. Magistrate acting as a Special Master In the event there are unused seats by for the District Court. any district then persons on waiting lists to SEAT ALLOCATION All magnet schools shall have a student population which is fifty percent (50%) black and fifty percent (50%) non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the following formula: Twenty-five per centum (25%) of the capacity of a magnet school shall be re-attend  from the other districts shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant. No student attending a magnet school will be considered as an M-to-M transfer student for incentive payment purposes. TARGETED RATIOS The parties have previously submitted to the Court a proposed stipulation for M-to-M i. 372 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT transfers which in part recognizes that if M-to-M transfers occur, ratios targeted by any of the districts for particular schools might be affected depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first priority should be a successful M-to-M transfer program and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures would not be regarded or urged as constitutional violations or departures from desegregation plans. The parties further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet school program could potentially have the same or similar effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a co_nstitutional violation. LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT The parties agree and recommend that, should the Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the Court that they cooperate in the development of an application for any future magnet grants. ADMINISTRATION The daily administration and operation of the magnet schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The host district shall designate a person who shall have principal responsibility for overseeing the development and implementation of its magnet program. STUDENT RECRUITMENT The parties agree that the Magnet Re-  view Committee shall establish a Magnet/ M-to-M Educational Team (MET). The major responsibilities of the MET shall include community education and information dissemination of educational opportunities in the magnet programs and recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall report to the MRC. The MET shall be composed of the person from each school district and the State responsible for desegregation planning, and two additional persons selected by each of the following parties: Joshua Intervenors Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District State of Arkansas These additional representatives of the MET shall not be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State. February 16, 1987 PCSSD Administrative Offices The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) endorses the foregoing stipulations. Pulaski County Special School District Isl ______G_ e_n_e_J_o_n_es ______ North Little Rock School District Isl _____J_ a_m_e_s_R_._S_m_it_h_ _____ Little Rock School District Isl ____ J_e_s_se_L_._R_a_n_c_if_e_r ___ _ Arkansas Department of Education Isl ____ M_a_r_c1_a_A_. H_a_r_d_in_g ____ _ Arkansas Department of Education Morris F. Holmes Isl ---------------- The EXHIBIT B MAGNET REVIEW COMMITIE REPORT TO THE COURT Eastern District of Ar ansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Ark sas 72203 Dear Judge W ods: The Ma t Review Committee submits for your onsideration the attached report includ g nine separate recommendations con ming magnet schools in Pulaski unty. ----------~---  --- -- ---- PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) ..  EXHIBIT 1 3 i  I PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT r. II. Introduction ..... General Provisions. CONTENTS Magnet Funding Calculation Magnet Surplus Credit ...... . A. B. c. D. E. F. Magnet Operational Charge. . . ... G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. o. P. Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools. Continuation of Existing Funding .... Compensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs .. . Conditions to Settlement. . .. . Act 34 Exemption. . . . . . .. . Staff Development ........ . Recognition of Autonomy ...... . District Budgets . . . . . Prohibition of Punitive Action ..... . Rededicated Millages .... . Limit of Liability ...... . Majority to Minority Provisions. Consent Order. . . . . III. State's Role in the Desegregation Process . A. Monitoring Compensatory Education. . . . . . B. Statement of Support for the Plans . . . . . c. Petition for Election. . . . . . . D. Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegregation. . . . . . . . . . . E. Elimination of the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative. . . . . . . . . . F. Commitment to Princit,les . . . . . . . . G. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . H. Test Validation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. In-Service Training. . . . . . . . . . . J. Recruitment of Minority Teachers . K. Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates . . . . . . . . ... L. Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff . . . . . M. School Construction. . . . . . ii . . . . . . 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 IV. Dismissal of Litigation .. . . . - . . . . 18 A. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release.~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts. . . ......... 19 C. Reserved Issue . . . . . . 19 V. VI. Attorneys' Fees ... The LRSD Settlement. VII. VIII. A. B. The A. B. c. D. The A. B. c. D. Payment Schedule and Terms . Loan Provisions. PCSSD Settlement. . . . . Financial Settlement . . . . . 1. Magnet Payments . . . . . 2. Other Payments. . Staff Development. . . . . . . Food Services. . . . . . Housing. . . . . NLRSD Settlement. Magnet Payments. . .... Compensatory Education Payments .. Additional Payments ....... . Description of Additional Compensatory Education Programs. IX. Execution ....... . ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Release of Claims - State Attachment B Release of Claims - LRSD Attachment C Release of Claims'- PCSSD Attachment D Release of Claims - NLRSD iii 20 22 22 24 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 36 36 I. Introduction The Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") Desegregation Plan (January 31, 1989), the Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 ( \"PCSSD\") Permanent Desegregation Plan (October 3, 1988, as supplemented February 15, 1989), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") Desegregation Plan of March and October, 19 8 6 ( as amended or modified through February 15, 1989 or by operation of this settlement agreement) and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (February 15, 19 89) ( the \"Plans\") hold excellent promise for achieving unitary school systems in these three districts which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination. Continued litigation regarding funding and other issues may make more difficult and further delay effective implementation of the constitutional obligations of the State of Arkansas and the three Pulaski County school districts (the \"Districts\"). This settlement of the issues concerning the Districts, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), the Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") and the State of Arkansas in Li t'tle Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (\"this Litigation\")  is in the best interest of the students, patrons and staffs of the Districts and the people of the State. 1 - The superintendents of the Districts support the settlement and it has_ received the unanimous approval of their respective boards of directors. The business community as represented by the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce also supports the settlement and the Plans. That group has pledged the strong support of its membership to help the Districts achieve many of the goals of the Plans. The black plaintiff intervenors (\"Joshua\"), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Little Rock and North Little Rock chapters of the NAACP and the Greater Little Rock Christian Ministerial Alliance pledge their support to the Plans and this settlement. The settlement is also supported by Knight (LRCTA, PACT, NLRCTA and the AEA). The Arkansas State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") and the Governor of Arkansas support the settlement. II. General Provisions A. Magnet Fund~ng Calculation . Each District's magnet students will be included in the calculation of that District's table rate in determining State aid to be paid under the MFPA formula or any future funding formula. B. Magnet Surplus Credit Any cash surplus remaining in the magnet school fund for a given fiscal year after all expenses and receivables for that fiscal year have been accounted for (including a payment to the host District for administrative costs) will be returned to Districts and ADE as follows: (1) NLRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year to the extent surplus funds are available: (2) If additional surplus funds exist following the payment to NLRSD, PCSSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available: (3) If additional surplus funds exist following the payments to NLRSD and PCS SD, 2 the LRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available. (4) If additional surplus funds remain following the payments to NLRSD, PCSSD and LRSD, the ADE will be refunded its magnet operation payments to the extent such funds are available. This  provision will remain in effect for seven years beginning with the 1988-89 school year. The payment to the host District for administration of the magnet schools for the 1988-89 school year will be 3.09% of the magnet school fund. In future years, the payment to the host District for the administration of magnet schools will be the same percentage of the magnet fund as the state-determined percentage of the host District's budget attributable to administrative costs. C. Magnet Operational Charge The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Cammi ttee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event. 3 The parties will review the operational charge on an annual basis but will not increase the charge solely for the purpose of creating a surplus. Calculations in paragraphs II.B., VII.A.I. and VIII.A assume a $3,100 operational charge. D. Restrictions on Fundina Magnet Schools The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet  schools other than under paragraph II E. below. The Districts obligation to contribute funds to magnet schools shall be limited to their paying their portion of the costs of the six existing magnet schools pursuant to the Court's order of February 27, 1987. Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. Those seating capacities are as follows: Carver Williams Gibbs Booker Mann Parkview 613 515 351 660 935 991 E. Continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: 4 (1) The State's portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools (Gibbs, Booker, Carver, Parkview, Mann and Williams) using the formula employed by the State during the 1987-88 school year modified by the inclusion of the number of students from each District attending magnet schools in the calculation of that District's table rate for distribution of MFPA; (2) Majority to minority student transfer incentive payments to the host and home Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation; (3) The State's share of Magnet Review Committee allocated; expenses as currently (4) Transportation to the six existing (5) magnet schools; Transportation of majority to minority transfer students between the Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation; and (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. 5 ., The funds paid by _the State under this agreement are not intende~ to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas. F. Comoensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs The settlement payments described in this agreement are exclusive of any funds for compensatory education, early childhood development or other programs that may otherwise be due LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which students residing in territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of such students if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education), PCSSD or NLRSD under present and future school assistance programs established or administered by the State. The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. G. Conditions to Settlement This settlement is conditioned upon approval by the Districts' boards of directors (already done) and the State Board of Education (already done), the certification of the classes and class representatives by the court (already done), the 6 . ' execution of the releases attached hereto as Attachments A, B, C and D, the dismissal of the State from this Litigation with prejudice consistent with the terms of Attachment A, the approval of the terms of the settlement by the court and the enactment of legislation prior to August 15, 1989 either (1) making provision for the funding of the Settlement or (2) authorizing the Arkansas State Board of Education (State Board) to enter into a consent order which directs the State Board to make the payments which would fund the obligations of the State under the Settlement (already done) . As used in this agreement, \"final approval\" means after all these conditions have been satisfied. If final approval of this settlement agreement is not obtained, no statement in the agreement may be used for or against any party as an admission of liability intent. H. Act 34 Exemption No sums received by t.h e Districts pursuant to this settlement shall be regarded as included within the definitions of total local resources, net local resources, gross current revenue, or miscellaneous funds pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 6-20-301, et seq. or pursuant to any amendments to those sections which may hereinafter be enacted. 7 .. All funds received by the Districts pursuant to this agreement, . including any interest or earnings thereon, will be exempt from Sections 8 and 11 of Act 34 of 1983 (A.C.A. Sections 6-20-307 and 6-20-319) as amended or as may be amended, with the following exceptions: (1) For the 1989-90 and later school years, all MFPA funds received by the Districts, as calculated in accordance with A.C.A. 6-20-302 (1987 Supp.), including the portion of that calculationrepresented by the Districts' magnet students, will not be exempt; and (2) the funds received by the Districts for any compensatory education, early childhood education, and other statewide programs contemplated by paragraph II.F. will be exempt only if the funds are exempt in all other districts in the State, and if so, those funds which are exempt cannot be counted by the Districts as expenditures satisfying Act 34's requirement that 70% of net current revenue be used to pay certified personnel. I. Staff Development To facilitate the Plans, the ADE authorizes each District up to four \"release days\" per year for the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years. Those would be divided as two release days per semester. Further, two such release days, one per semester, shall be provided for the 1991-92 school year. 8 These \"rele~e days\" will have the effect of shortening by ~our days in each of the first two years and two days in the last year, the student contact/instructional days contained within the Districts school .calendars. The parties recognize that any detriment which might result from the reduction of contact days will be outweighed by the benefits derived from the staff development training (which will include all appropriate desegregation training and specialized training in strategies designed to reduce the level of achievement disparity between black and white students) and the increased efficiency and competence of the trained teachers. It is further understood and agreed that these release days shall be in addition to any staff development days currently required or which might be required in the future by ADE or other State authority. J. Recognition of Autonomy The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. 9 K. District Budgets The Distric~s may utilize the receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to _balance previous years' budgets and if this is done, neither the previous year's deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of retaliating legislation) against the for the purpose of Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts .  M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 10 all of the millages and consequently not all of the millages sought .to be rededicated have actually been rededicated. The parties agree that the court's order of December 29, 1986 (reinstated January 7, 1987) should be corrected to include all millages of the Districts which would otherwise expire before or during the year 2007. Pursuant to this settlement, a corrected order has been submitted to the court for approval following final approval of the settlement. Upon approval, the order will be delivered to the responsible county officials. N. Limit of Liability The State's financial liability under this Settlement beyond that set forth in II.E. and II.F. shall be limited to $129,750,000 to be paid as set forth in Sections V, VI, VII and VIII herein. O. Majoritv to Minority Provisions (1) In any application for aid pursuant to Section 6 of Act 24 of the 1989 Regular Session of  the Arkansas General Assembly, the receiving district /  for M to M students may include in such application any M to M students it hosts who are eligible for participation pursuant to Section 6(A) of said Act. (2) The State will continue to make payments under the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation so that -the host district receives its average cost of , , educating a student fQr each M to M transfer stud~nt enrolled in the host district. (3) When at least one Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and in PCSSD, all M to M payments generat::id by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payments to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. the This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. The State payments for M to M students not enrolled in Interdistrict Schools will continue in accordance with paragraph (2) above. ( 4) .-Beginning _the irst -year an -Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCSSD, PCS SD will contribute $200,000 per year for five years to the pool of funds to be used by .b oth districts to operate Interdistrict Schools. P. Consent Order The parties consent to the entry of an order containini the requirements of Act 1 of 1989, Second Extraordinary Session, to the extent it is not inconsistent with this settlement. 12 III. State's Role in the Desegrecration Process A. Monitorincr. Comoensatorv Education The State shall be required (as a non-party) to monitor, through the ADE, the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts. If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). If such petitions are filed, the undersigned parties will not object based upon lack of standing. ADE shall provide regular written monitoring reports to the parties and the court. Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties. It is being done to ensure that the State will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State .  A State plan for monitoring implementation of compensato~y education will be submitted to the parties within 60 days following execution of the settle.me.nt agreement. B. Statement of Support for the Plans The State, Districts and Joshua will provide to the court a statement of full support for the Plans 13 _, upon final approval of the settlement. This statement of . support will not be construed to burden the State with additional funding obligations beyond those existing at the ti.me of the execution of this agreement except those specifically set forth in this agreement. C. Petition for Election The State will join LRSD if LRSD petitions the court to allow it to hold a millage election. D. Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegrecration The ADE will research and list laws that impede desegregation and submit legislation to repeal such laws to the General Assembly as soon as practicable. ADE will not knowingly promulgate or retain any regulations which impede desegregation, and the other parties will notify ADE of any regulations which they believe would have such an effect. If any regulation is demonstrated to have such an effect, the regulation will be modified or repealed or an exemption will be provided. The Districts, Knight and Joshua will assist the ADE in identifying existing and proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. E. Elimination of State Funding for the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service has ceased and the funds were reallocated 14 to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court. Should these funds no longer be required by the Metropolitan Supervisor, they will be used to assist the ADE in securing the services of trained consultants to develop effective compensatory, remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation. F. Commitment to Principles The State remains corrani tted to the following principles: a. There should be a  remediation of the racial academic achievement disparities for Arkansas students. b. Special education classes and gifted and talented classes should not be racially identifiable. c. The ADE and the Districts should work cooperatively to promote the desegre-gation goals of the State and the Districts and to ensure educational excellence in the public schools in Pulaski County and throughout the State. G. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement The ADE, with the assistance of the Court's desegregation expert(s), will develop and will search for programs to remediate achievement disparities between black and white students. If necessary to develop such programs, the ADE will employ appropriately trained and experienced consultants in the field of remediation of racial achievement disparities and/or hire as staff members persons with such training and experience. The remediation of racial achievement disparities shall remain a high priority with the ADE. H. Test Validation ADE will conduct periodic reviews of tests used in the State's testing program to determine if students' race, sex, or culture adversely affect their test scores. If bias is found in any test, that test will not be used unless modified to eliminate the bias. I. In-Service Training ADE will establish in-service programs to assist in providing training for the staffs of desegregating school districts. Such programs will first be made available to the Districts. J. Recruitment of Minority Teachers The Districts will annually supply ADE information identifying the subject areas in which they have actual or foreseeable shortages of minority teachers. The ADE will then obtain from higher education sources information by race on new teacher  16 graduates in those subject areas and make such information available to the Districts. ADE will seek to increase the pool of minority teachers available to the Districts and to other districts in the state through recruitment efforts both in and out of state, and at the same time shall develop annual profiles of teachers available by race, specialty, subject area and area of certification. K. Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates The ADE will work with the Arkansas Department of Higher Education to reduce any racial disparity that may exist in the distribution of existing scholarships and to secure passage of legislation to financially assist minority students attending Arkansas colleges and universities who commit to  become teachers in Arkansas, including scholarships for freshmen and sophomores who are committed to pursuing a teacher-training program and juniors and seniors who have been accepted in teacher education programs. L. Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff The ADE will develop and implement a plan to identify jobs and consultant positions within the Department  in which minorities are underrepresented and will recruit and employ minority applicant_s for those positions so as to create a balanced, desegregated staff at all levels. , .., M. School Construction The ADE will. develop criteria for site selection of new schools, major school expansion and school closings. ADE will require that a district applying to it for approval of new construction or major school expansion provide a desegregation impact statement setting forth evidence that the proposed improvements do not have a segregative effect. ADE will not recommend or approve the site of any school in any county contiguous to Pulaski County if the construction or expansion of the school at the requested location of such school will have a substantial negative impact on any District's ability to desegregate. IV. Dismissal of Litigation A. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release The State conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A. The  settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of and compliance with the terms of the release of all claims against the State affixed  hereto as - Attachment A. The settlement of the State's liability, while contingent on the district court's approval, is not contingent upon court approval of any District's plan or a finding of 18 unitary status for . any District. Further, the settlement is c~ntingent upon a determination by the district court that the settlement is binding on the classes of all current, past and future LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD black students, their parents and next friends. As part of this settlement, the parties stipulate that the Joshua Intervenors are proper class representatives under and otherwise meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and support their approval. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of the releases of the Districts attached as Attachments B, C and D. The parties pledge to diligently pursue acceptance of the settlement by the court. B. Agreement Regarding Litiaation Among Joshua and the Districts Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further liti~ation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the Districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans. c. Reserved Issue The Districts and Joshua contend that ADE has the authority to regulate private schools and should exercise that authority to insure that private schools comply with the same educational standards that are applicable to p_ublic schools. ADE is not persuaded that it is vested with such authority. The parties therefore agree that the issue of State regulation of private schools is not settled by this agreement and may be presented _ to the court for resolution at a future date. As this settlement provides for the dismissal with prejudice of the State as a party to this Litigation, the ADE agrees to make a special appearance following such dismissal -for the sole purpose of responding to a motion filed by any of the Districts or Joshua seeking the resolution of the single question of its legal authority to regulate private schools and require them to comply with certain educational standards. A finding that the ADE has such authority shall not be used by any party as the basis for any State liability for the period prior to such finding. V. Attorneys' Fees LRSD agrees to make no additional c !aims for attorneys' fees and to hold the State, PCSSD and NLRSD harmless for all pending LRSD claims for attorneys' fees against the State, PCSSD and NLRSD. If necessary to enforce the hold harmless agreement, the State will be entitled to deduct the amount of any payment for LRSD attorneys' fees made after the execution 20 of this agreement from any payment due from the State to LRSD under this agreem~nt more than five months after the . attorneys' fees payment is made. The State, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will pay attorneys' fees and costs to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Ful)d, Inc . . (LDF). The fees will be paid upon terms set forth below for the work performed in this Litigation and other litigation which preceded this Litigation beginning with Aaron v. Cooper, Graves v. Board of Education and their progeny. The payment to LDF is on behalf of, and for the work of, all attorneys who have worked with LDF on behalf of the interests of black children in the Districts, to desegregate schools therein, over the duration of the Litigation. The amount is exclusive of the payments heretofore made by any of the parties. The State's portion of the fee will be $750,000 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars); . the LRSD' s portion shall be $2,000,000 (Two Million Dollars); the PCSSD's portion shall be $300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Dollars); and NLRSD's portion shall be $100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Dollars), which shall include settlement of fees for the voting rights action also ' pending in this court of which settlement on the merits is contemplated shortly. All such payments shall be due and payable on final approval except for the payments due from the PCS SD and NLRSD. The PCSSD payment shall mature six years from the date of final approval of the settlement. The NLRSD shall make two payments each in the amount of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) no later than 10 days of final approval of ., , the settlement and July 1,. 1990, respectively. The State will advance LRSD's share. of the fees and reduce total payments due LRSD under this agreement by that amount. The amounts will be deducted in the final years of payment to LRSD. The parties are satisfied that over the thirty-three years of this Litigation, Joshua and its predecessor parties, all of whom have been represented by attorneys for the LDF have expended time and incurred costs for which they have not been compensated. The parties are also satisfied, upon a review of their own time records and costs in this Litigation over the last five years, that the payment is fair and reasonable and consistent with the payments made over that period of ti.me to counsel for the o~er parties. The parties also agree for purposes of this settlement that Joshua is a prevailing party for purposes of relief. VI. The LRSD Settlement A. Payment Schedule and Terms The State will make the following payments to the LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which  the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for the education) on or before the dates indicated: 22 - (1) Payments for compensatory education progr_ams and other desegregation expenses will be as follows: Within 10 days of Final Approval $4,475,000 January 1, 1990 3,475,000 July 1, 1990 4,609,250 January 1, 1991 3,609,250 July 1, 1991 4,747,528 January 1, 1992 3,747,528 July 1, 1992 4,889,954 January 1, 1993 3,889,954 July 1, 1993 5,036,652 January 1, 1994 4,036,652 July 1, 1994 4,057,460 January 1, 1995 3,057,460 July 1, 1995 2,985,131 January 1, 1996 1,985,131 July 1, 1996 1,844,811 January 1, 1997 844,811 July 1, 1997 1,266,770 January 1, 1998 266,770 July 1, 1998 152,387 . January 1, 1999 152,387 $59,129,886 - 23 (2) The State will make additional payments to LRSD totaling $13,870,114 over a seven year period as set forth below: Within 10 days of Final Approval $2,000,000 7/1/90 $2,000,000 7/1/91 $2,000,000 7/1/92 $2,000,000 7/1/93 $2,000,000 7/1/94 $2,000,000 7/1/95 $1,870,114 These payments are cash equivalent payments in lieu of formula guarantees for LRSD provided for in an earlier signed version of this settlement. B. Loan Provisions In addition to the above-mentioned payments, the State agrees to provide loans to LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for  their education) .between July 1, 1989 and July 1, 1999 in a cumulative amount of not more than $20,000,000.00 on the following terms: (1) . Each loan will be amortized over a 20-year period to be paid in full to an escrow account established by the parties as described below with 20 24 equal annual payments of principal begin~ing seven years following the execution of the loan: (2) No more than $6,000,000 will be loaned in any biennium and no loan will be made before July 1, 19891 (3) Each loan will bear interest beginning seven years following the execution of the loan at the rate of three percent (3%) per annum, such interest to be paid annually at the time of the annual principal payments to an escrow account established by the parties as described below; (4) The proceeds of the loans shall be made payable to a trust governed by a trust committee consisting of the Director of the Department of Education {or designee), the LRSD Superintendent {or designee) and a designee of Joshua.  The loan proceeds shall be used for desegregation purposes including, but not limited to, school construction or renovation, salaries of instructional personnel, equipment purchase of instructional and supplies, program development and implementation costs, consultant,s' fees and and staff development training of LRSD principals , and teachers to promote desegregation. The loan proceeds will not be utilized directly or indirectly as a vehicle for generating income for LRSD through higher interest rates; (5) The loan(s) will be secured by a first lien in favor of the State on existing, extended or new millages (whichever the State chooses}, such first lien to be assured by an opinion letter to the benefit of the State from LRSD's bond counsel; ( 6) LRSD and the State will establish a joint escrow account into which all principal and interest due on loans made under this agreement will be paid. If at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000 the  composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students} , the escrowed funds will be 26 paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven . If the 90% goal is . not reached by December 31, 2000, the escrow funds will be paid to the State and any outstanding loans will continue to be repaid according to the schedule set orth in this agreement. The intent of this subsection is that LRSD will receive twenty million dollars plus any accrued interest if its goal of increasing student achievement as described in this subsection is reached and that the State will be repaid in full amount of all loans plus interest if LRSD does not reach its goal. VII. The PCSSD Settlement A. Financial Settlement PCSSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of PCSSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA, the State's role in the Granite Mountain transfer and compensatory education needs. The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by PCSSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of PCSSD students. 27 ., 1. Magnet Pavments The ADE sha~l, beginning with the 1989-90 school . year, make . payments of school aid for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD which shall in turn reimburse LRSD at the rate of $1,550 per PCSSD magnet school student being educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may, at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for PCSSD magnet students or may make such ~id payments for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD. If the latter option is selected, then PCS SD shall make total payments to LRSD of $3,100 per year for each PCSSD magnet student or the appropriate pro rata share of said $3,100 if  such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available u~der II.B. herein. 2. Other Payments (a) The State shall make the following six scheduled payments to PCSSD: Within 10 days of Final Approval $3,000,000 07/01/90 07/01/91 07/01/92 07/01/93 07/01/94 28 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 (b) The State shall make the following payments as cash equivale?ts in lieu of the Temporary Formula and the transportation aid adjustment set out in an earlier signed version of this settlement: Within 10 days of Final Approval $1,000,000 7/1/90 7/1/91 7/1/92 7/1/93 7/1/94 7/1/95 B. Staff Develooment $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 PCSSD is exploring the utility of a program under which all certified staff would experience three college hours of course work in Black History or other similar course offering. PCSSD is exploring and evaluating this concept to facilitate its efforts to reduce the achievement disparity between black and white students. ADE and PCSSD recognize and understand that such a program, if it required PCSSD to fully fund presently prevailing college tuition charges, would be prohibitively expensive. ADE pledges to use its best efforts to work with appropriate Arkansas colleges and universities to facilitate a special arrangement which would significantly reduce the cost of such a program to PCSSD and 29 make it financially possible to implement. ADE . assumes no additional financial responsibility pursuant to this commitment. c. Food Services LRSD agrees  to contract with PCS SD for any food products which LRSD can obtain from PCSSD at the same or lower cost than LRSD can obtain the same quality products from other vendors. D. Housing ADE agrees to use its best efforts to influence appropriate state agencies to assist PCSSD in its efforts to promote and secure scattered site housing in the PCSSD by securing and providing, to the extent feasible, state owned or controlled land suitable for such use. VIII. The NLRSD Settlement NLRSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of NLRSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA and to compensatory education needs .  The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by NLRSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of NLRSD students. A. Magnet Pavrnents The ADE shall, beginning with the 1989-90 school year, make payments of school aid for NLRSD magnet students directly to NLRSD which shall in turn 30  reimburse LRSD at he rate of $1,550 per NLRSD magnet school student ~eing educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may, at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for NLRSD magnet students or may make such aid payments for NLRSO magnet students directly to NLRSD. If the latter option is selected, then NLRSD shall make total payments to the LRSD of $3,100 per year per each NLRSD magnet student or the appropriate pro-rata share of said $3,100 if such students  are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. B. Compensatory Education Pavments Beginning with the 1989-90 school year and continuing through the 1995-96 school year, the State will, on July 1 of each year, pay NLRSD $389,025 (a total of $2,723,175 for the seven year period). C. Additional Payments As additional compensatory education assistance, beginning with the 1990-91 school year and continuing through the 1996-97 school year, the NLRSD will receive payments to support the reduction of the percentage of the total black student population that 31 is in its special education program. The formula fbr such payments is_ as follows: (1) The first step is to determine a Base Year, or starting point, to which placements in further years will be compared. The October 1, 1987 general enrollment data and the December, 1987 special education count will be used to establish this base and calculations pursuant to this formula will be based on those counts in future years. On October 1, 1987, the NLRSD had 4083 black students, including those attending magnet schools, (Total Black Population - \"TBP\") and 805 black students were in special education, including those attending magnet schools, (Blacks in Special Education - \"BSE\") in December, 1987. Thus, 19.72% of the District's total black population was in special education ( \"Black Placement Rate\"). (2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) below and solely for determining the amount of these formula payments, the NLRSD will receive the State Base Equalization Rate (SBER) multiplied by the special education weights for the difference between the number of black students actually in special education  and the number that would have been in special education if there had been no reduction in the BPR since the Base Year. Because of delayed year financing, the student counts will be taken in school 32 _., years 1989-90 through ~995-96 but payments for those counts will be made in 1990-91 through 1996-97 using the payment year's SBER. By way of illustration, if the TBP in 1989-90 is 4212, applying the BPR for the Base Year would result in .1972 x 4212, or 830.6, black students in special education. If the actual number is 772, the District would be entitled to payment for the special education weights (average .714 per student) for 58.6 students, which would result in 41.8 weights. (3) Since the District cannot control placement decisions in other districts, for purposes of this formula black students who transfer into the NLRSD already placed in special education by their original school district will be excluded from the count of TBP and BSE for their first year of enrollment in the NLRSD to the extent that those incoming transfers exceed black students in special education who transfer from the NLRSD to other districts. For example, if 52 black special education students  transfer into the NLRSD between the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years while only 37 transfer out, 15 black students would be excluded from the TBP and ESE in 19 89-9 0 for the purpose of this formula. Thus, the NLRSD would be counted as only having 4197 TBP instead of 4212 and 757 BSE instead of 772 and would be paid for the special education weights associated _, I  i \\. ( with the difference between 827.6 and 757 BSE, i.e., 70.6. (4) As further support for the reduction of black students placed in special education and solely for the purpose of determining the amount of the payments, the NLRSD will be entitled to payment for the special education weights associated with the difference between the number of students removed from special education in the NLRSD and placed in the regular program in the NLRSD and those moved from the regular NLRSD program an_d placed in special education in the NLRSD. For example, if between 1988-89 and 1989-90 the District removed 83 black students from special education and placed 64 in special education, the District would be paid for the special education weights for an additional 19 students, which would result in 13.6 weights. (5) A list of names (and identification numbers, if available) of the special education students referred to in paragraph ,3 and 4 above, will be provided to the Arkansas Department of Education, before any payment is made under these provisions. (6) Because of delayed year financing, the operation  of this formula will not result in any additional funds until 1990-91. Presently, the SBER is $1,944.55 and, asswning a $74.00 per year 34 increase, it would be $2,018 in 1990-91. Using the above examples, ~his would generate $129,757. (7) The District may continue to receive payments under this formula only through the 1996-97 school year {inclusive) but in no event will the District receive more than $2,344,055 cumulatively through the operation of this formula. The limit of the State's obligation under this formula is $1,276,825. If the amount of the payments exceeds $1,276,825, LRSD and PCSSD agree to pay those excess amounts up to the point that either (a) the over-all payments to NLRSD under this formula reach $2,344,055 or (b) the expiration of the formula, whichever comes first. (8) Any payments required of LRSD and PCSSD under paragraph (7) will be shared on the basis of 75% for LRSD and 25% for PCSSD. (9) If, when the formula expires, the fonnula has generated less than $1,276,825, the State will pay the difference between what it has paid and $1,276,825 to LRSD and PCSSD on the basis of 75% to LRSD and 25% to PCSSD. (10) Any payments made pursuant to this formula will be separate from the District's usual MFPA payments. D. Description of Additional Comoensatory Education Programs Within fifteen days of the final approval of this settlement, the NLRSD will develop a description of the compensatory education programs to be developed with the additional compensatory education funds made available through this settlement and will petition the court to amend NLRSD  s Plan accordingly. The State, Joshua, and the Districts will support the NLRSD in this effort. IX. Execution A. This Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, is executed as revised by counsel with authority of their clients this 28th day of September, 1989. LITTLE BY'l ~~q~~~::;2:~~~- Christopher Helle One of Its Attorneys * * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By~l \\h.-nn-1,(Q.,'n,- ~_1/amuel Jones / / i~e o/ts Attvs ./ 36 * * * * * NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRI~ By: , ~ t). sifpnw. Jones ~ One of Its Attorneys * * * * * ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF :::CA~~~ H. William Allen One of Its Attorneys .. * * * * JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: ~ ti Id, ih\u0026amp; ( b t,/A s \"JR) d6hn W. Walker J One of Their Attorneys .. * * * * KNIG~RVENORS By: )~ Pauz?/ Ward One 6 Their Attorneys . RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE For and in consideration of its payments and commitments set forth in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the State of Arkansas, its constitutional officers, elected officials, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors including, but not limited to, the Arkansas State Board of Education and its members (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate 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. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond 2 the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth -Circuit and that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current members of that board named in the Litigation. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced payments or commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 200 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By=-~-----,.---------- Christopher Heller One of its Attorneys LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By ~P:-r_e_s_i.,. .a~e-n-:-t-,----:B=-o-a-r\"\"\"'a=--o-f-=--=-o-:-i-r_e_c_,t-o-r-s- EXECUTED THIS day of WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 * * * * * -------, 1989 by: PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 BY----,--,,----,----,,--,,,__.....,.. ___ _ President, Board of Directors By: -M-. -S-am-u-e=l J-o-n-es- -------- One of its Attorneys * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By: -S-te-p-h-e,n- -W-. -J-o-n-e-s- -------- One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By __ __,...,,------------,----- President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. BNyorm-a-n -J-. -C-ha-ch-k-in- ----- One of its Attorneys and JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 By ______________ _ John W. Walker One of its Attorneys THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS By ____ ...,,.,,--,,.,,._ _______ -,--__ _ LRSD Class Representative By ____ ...,....,,-----.---.---.---- President, Little Rock,  Arkansas Branch of the NAACP BY.,.,..,,.........,~----,,-----------,-\"T\"\"\"- NLRSD Class Representative and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP ByP-C:S:S-D- ::C=l-a:s=s- -R-=ep:-r-e-s-e-n-t-a-t-i-v-e,- --- EXECUTED this --- day of WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 4 * * * * * ------, 1989 by: KNIGHT INTERVENORS By _________ --,-_____ _ LRCTA Representative BY__,. _____________ _ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys By _________ - _____ _ PACT Representative By __________ - ____ _ NLRCTA Representative ....... RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the LRSD, its directors, administrators, appointees, employees, successors agencies, (hereafter departments, their predecessors and collectively . referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutic~al or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color, in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and ATTACHMENT B 2 that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. . It is further understood and agreed that the litigation I now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Coooer v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker and Clark v.  Board of Education of the 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. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. 3 EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION By-::-.--,----------=--,,---:----- By: _______________ Chairman, Board of Directors H. William Allen One of its Attorneys * * * * * EXECUTED THIS --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By: _M_ __s am_u_e~l__J_ o__ n_e_s_ _____ One of its Attorneys PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By __ ,_ ___________ _ President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By __ -,-___________ _ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By-----,-:-------,-----,----- President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of _______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DE_FENSE FUND, INC. By _____________ _ Norman J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys and By ______________ _ LRSD Class Representative ByP-r-e-s-i-d,e-n:-t,- -L--i.t-t-l-e= -R-o=c:k-, -,----- Arkansas Branch of the NAACP JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220l ByJo~h-n= W--. -W=-a-lk-e-r= --c--------- One of its Attorneys 4 By :--::Nc-:L-=RS=o::--::c::-:1.-a=-s-s-=R-e_p_r_e_s_e_n_t,...a_t,...1.,.. v-e-- and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By- =-==-==-=---=-'=-----=,-----,--.,......,..--- PCS SD Class Representative * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 BRyic~ha-rd- -W.- -R-oa-c-he-ll- ----- One of its Attorneys RNIGHT INTERVENORS By -L=RC-=TA= =R-e=p-r-e--s-e=n-t-a-t-i-v-e-, ---,------- By= -===--==-------,--....,.....,,------- PACT Representative By =NL- R=C- T=A ::R=e:p:r-e-s::e:n-t-a-t-i-v-e- ,-------- RELEASE bF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE PCSSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the PCSSD, its directors, administrators, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color, in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern ATTACHMENT C 2 - District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the.terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for tl}e Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Zinnamon v. Pulaski Countv School District, LR-C-68-154) ( the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the P.CSSD 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 implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the  event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. .... 3 EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 By: --,---,,----------,--,,------ Christopher Heller One of its Attorneys LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT _By_--,-------,,--,=-----,----- President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED THIS --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 7i201 By: ____________ _ H. William Allen One of its Attorneys ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ByC-h=a-i-rm,-a--n-, --B-o--a-r,d, --o-f- -D-.i-r-e-.c,t-o--r-s- - * * * * * EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By ----~------------ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By=---=----,,_-...,,....-,=--::--:----:--- President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. By _____________ _ Nonnan J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys and By~-=~=---,,,_------,------ LRSD Class Representative By=---=----,--,,.....,.~-=-__,,-,--....,...---- President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP .. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. l 7 z:i c _ ...Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 - - - By -:J,_o,..h-n--=w-=--. -w-a-=1-=-k_e_r _______ One of its Attorneys 4 By _____ ~=------,-----,--.,-,---- NLRSD Class Representative and Pre  idant of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By ______________ _ PCSSD Class Representative * * * * * EXECUTED this day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 BRYic-h,a-rd- -W,.. -R-o-a-c-h-e-ll- ------ One of its Attorneys KNIGHT INTERVENORS By ___________ -=-------,------- LRCTA Representative By --------,,--------,------- PACT Representative By __________ -,-____ _ NLRCTA Representative f . __., _ RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE NLRSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Considerationa), the undersigned parties do hereby discharge the NLRSD, its release, acquit and forever directors, administrators, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color, in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth ATTACHMENT D 2 Circuit and that the tenns of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Graves v. Board of Education of North Little Rock School District and Davis v. Board of Education of the North Little Rock School District (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the NLRSD 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 implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and  all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. l  ' 3 EXECUTED this day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By ___ ---:-:----,--=---=--=---,----- President, Board of Directors ByCh=ris-to-p-h-er- H-e-l-le-r ----- One of its Attorneys * * * * * EXECUTED THIS day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By: ____ - _______ _ M. Samuel Jones One of its Attorneys PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By __ - ______________ _ President, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 By _____________ _ H. William Allen One of its Attorneys ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION By...,,.-;----:-------,,---,,---,----- Chairman, Board of Directors * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of -------, 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. ByN~o-rn--ia-n- --J-.- =C,h-a--c-h:k-i-n- :--:------- By .,....,,.......,..,..----,c-::----------,----- LRSD Class Representative One of its Attorneys and BPyr=es-id-e-n-t-,: -L=it-tl-e- -R-o-c-k-, ----- Arkansas Branch of NAACP .... JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 7228J BJyo-h=n -W-.= W--a-lk-e-r- -,.--------- One of its . Attorneys 4 ByN=L-R-:S-D:: :-C::l:a--s-s:: :R-::e--p-r-e::s:-e-n--t-a-.t,i.v..e., ..--and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By~---------...,,..,,-------------- PCSSD Class Representative * * * * * EXECUTED this --- day of ______ , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 By-_____________ _ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys KNIGHT INTERVENORS ByLR~C-TA= .R.,e,p.-re=s-e-n-t-a-ti-v-e- -,,------ BPyA=CT- =Re-p-r-e-se-n-t-a-ti-v-e- -------- ByNL=RC-T=A --R-e-p:r-e=se-n-t~at-i-v-e- ------- H . WUJ..lAM Au.DI S..V.t\u0026gt;M J.-.o:so:-- All.EN LA w FIRM A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A TIDRNEYS AT LAW 1200 WORTiiEN BANlC BUll.DING LITn..E Roa:, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 374-7100 'Tll.l:CCl'Y ,,01, )74, Jt,)J May 31, 1989 Re: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, NO. LR-C-82-866 Nl1'A MOSl;R llGAJ. ASSlST A! John W. Walker, Esq. Christopher Heller, Esq. Stephen W. Jones, Esq. HAND DELIVERED M. Samuel Jones, Esq. Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Dear Counsel: In accordance with Ill .A. of the Pulaski County Desegregation Settlement 1-.qreement of March, 19 89, we are enclosing an Arkansas Department of Education plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education in the three school distrjcts. The settlement agreement does not provide for filing or even submission of this document to the Court at this time. However, we are sending copies to both Judge Woods and ~r. Mccutcheon so that they may be aware that this requirement of the settlement agreement has been met. We anticipate that the enclosed plan may be modified after receiving your comments and after we learn more about the monitoring role that will be undertaken by Eugene Reville. Sincerely you~s, ALLEN LA\\\u0026gt;! FI RM H. William Allen HWA/nm Enclosure cc: The Honorable Henry Woods The Honorable Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Jr. bee: Dr. Ruth Steele Sam Bratton, Esq. Sharon Streett, Esq . Marion J. Starling, Jr., Esq. EXHIBIT :i ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PULASKI COUNTY DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) provides for the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), to monitor the implementation of compensatory education programs by the school districts in Pulaski County. The ADE defines compensatory education programs as those programs which are directed at improving the academic performance of black students whose academic achievement has been adversely affected by racial discriminatory practices within the school. The state believes that the compensatory effects of the programs should be measured by the extent to which disparities in educational achievement between minority and majority students are reduced. Although the Agreement identifies compensatory education as the primary area for monitoring, the state's monitoring responsibility is necessarily broader in order to ensure an equitable education for all students and demonstrate fiscal accountability to the tax payers of Arkansas. Monitoring responsibilities for desegregation effectiveness by necessity mu s t permeate all elements of schooling to ensure equal opportunities through special state funded remedial programs. Therefore, it shall be the goal of the ADE to provide extensive monitoring and evaluation of the Agreement. The primary focus of the process shall be a continuous assessment of the remedial effectiveness of programs supported partially or fully by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and services receiving special funding include: 1. Compensatory Education 2. Magnet Schools 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers The Agreement commits the state to: 1. Direct funding to the districts (within the limits provided in the Agreement) 2. Principles of desegregation a. Remediation of racial academic achievement disparities 1 - b. Standardized test validation c. Racial balance in special programs d. Minor.i ty recrui t .mcnt and employment 3. Site selection crlteria for school construction or ~xpa.nsion 4. Staff development release days for the three districts through 1990-1991 S. Tw~nt.y m.i l lion dollars loan to Little Rock School District to develop programs for rem~diating achievement disparities and for other programs and initiatives which fncilitate desegregation 6. Selection of an agreed standardized test to satisfy the lo~n forgiveness of the Agreement Further, Section III-A of the Agreement states: ,, .. The ADE shall provide regular written monitoring reports t~ the partiP.s and the court. MDn.itoring by the statP. shall be independent. of that of the other parties. 3. As a last resort, ADE may petition the court for modifications or changes in such programs being imp)emented by the districts \\but not for il reduction in the agr~ed level of state funding). ~- Any recommendations made by J\u0026gt;.DE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the state. Jl.l though, the J\u0026gt;.DE: moni taring shall be independent of that of t:ie other parties, the districts are advised to establish a11 internal monitoring p1an. The purpose shall be to determine and document that: 1. Th~ desegregation plan was, or is being implemented on a timely basis, 2. lneguities do not exist and/or do not recur; and 3. All students are afforded an equitable education. 2  !SGNl TOHHIG ~he monjtoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitations, review of plans, review of statistical and administrative data as well as perceptual responses from school personnel, patrons and students. Further, monitoring visits should provide evidence that the school s.ite is representative of the pluralistic nature of the Arr,erican Society. Moni tor:1 ng tcc1ms shall be selected by the Director, J:-.rkansas Dep,ntment of Educ at ion (ADE), General Di vision. The teams shall include ADE personnel and may iuclude others as designated by the Director. Monitoring visits .shall be conducted according to a schedule e;-:;tc:1blis11cd by the l\\DE.  The rnoni toring process shall include announced and unannounced visits. M~nltors shall record ~vents and conditions during site visits. Monitors shall observe and report. findings only. Each district shall include in the six-year pla11 and ~nnual .sc:h0ol .improveillcnt pL;.n:s appropriate objectives to c1ch.ieve c0mpliance with each court order related to the Agreement. The ADE shall monitor the six-yec1r plans and ;innual school improvemC'nt plans t0 dE::t~rmine prouress toward uchieving educatio11al equity. District plans should provide evidence of 88w.pliur.ce with co~rt orders and 3 process to ascertain progress . -  'The AD\"E shall identify relevant dat.a necessary to formulate conclusions and recommendations. Data should provide: 1. Evidence that policies, pro~edures, rules and regulations ar~ developed and implemented to facilitate desegregation. 2. Evidence that plans r~lated to reducing achievement disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Ev.5.dencc that student assignments to schools, classes and pr,)grams at each organ.izat ional }eve) are made wit.hout b :i.as. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the Agreement are used to facilitate the desegregation process. S. Evidence that tr2vel time to and from schools is not disproportionate among black and non-blc:1.ck stude-nc.s and the percent~ge of black students transported for desegregation is not significantly greater than the pe-r\u0026lt;::entr.19e of non-black students transported for d~segregation. G. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the needs of a diverse student population. 7. Evidence of internal procedures for ensuring that materials for appraising or counseling students are nun-discriminatory. 8. EvidencP. that curricular content and instructional strategies are utilized to meet the diverse needs of the student population served. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and ::1ssigned in a manner to meet the goals of a desegregating .school district. 10. Evidence that procedures related to extracurricula and (:o~urricula activities are developed and implemented to identify and eliminate conditions that result in participation that is disproportionate to the student population. 11. Evidence of diverse representation on appointed distr:i ctwide and school-bilsed commi tteP.s. 12. Evidence of efforts to ensure that parent attendance aL school functions is not disproportionate to the student population. 4 I i 1, -'-- 1). E~idence of success related to Majority to Minority 't \"t alJsf er s. Evidence that magnet schools arc an effective lnlerdi~trict remedy for racial balance. The collection of data shall include at least the fol1owing: A. Enrollment/.Att.endanc1:: 1. Enrollm~nt by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional programs. 2. Enrollment by rnce, gender, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional program fo~ each magnet school. ]. Nwnber of non promotes by race, gender, grade, school, teacher, transported and nontransported. B. Test Data 1. 2. 3. ArY.ansas Minimum Performance Test results by race, gender, grade, school and socioeconomic status (SES). Nwnber of eighth grade1.s failing to attain mastery after the first, second and third administration of test by race, gender, SES and school. Nw11ber of eighth graders that are non promotes for failing to a t tain mastery after third administration of test by race, gender, SES and school. 4. Metropolitan Achievement Test - 6th Edition or other national normed tests as may be adopted by the :Z..DE. Results should be given by race, gender, grade, school, SES and teacher. 5. Number of 11th and 12th graders by race, gender, school and guidance counselor who take the PSAT, ShT or ACT. c.. .Staff 1. Number of Full Time Equivalent (F.T.E.) classroom teacl1ers by race, gender, school, years of experience. 2. Number of F.T.E. school-based administrators by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience . 3. Nwnber of F.T.E. counselors by race, gender, school, years of experience. s - ~ . 5. 6. 7. ,... 0. Numher of F. 'J'. E . ):inderg3.rtP.n teachers by race, 0ender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E. lib.ra:cians by race, gender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E. department. hcr1ds by race, gender, scliool, years of experience. Number of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience. N'.m,ber :::,f F.T.E. centr:11 office positions by job ~ategory, race, gender, school, years of experience. D. Policy and Program Information 1. Administrative chart indicates titles, names, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities. 2. ?o}icies and regulations related to student entrance 3nd exit criteria for course offerings and special st.ate funded programs including: ~- Magnet Schools h. Comperisa tor:,, Educ:a tion c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 3. Student assig1ment policies, rules and regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment h. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular Activities e. Student Rights and Responsibilities f. Library Usage g. Student Records 5. Copir.s of current negotiated agreements with all employee groups. E. Budget Information Quarterly (or monthly, if available) financial reports including: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high scl1ool programs, and high school programs by funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state dese...gregation funding). 6 2. Transportation cost and funding source. 3. ~11 legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensa~ory Education Program cost 5. Magnet school cost F. Student Discipline 1. Number of discipline referrals by school and teacher reported by race, gender, grade, subject and teachers' years of experience. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. G. Perceptional Data Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, school services, district and buildin~ leadership, special state funded programs and educational equity summarized by race, gender, attendance zone, sc:hou1 and grade. H. Majority to Minority Transfer Number and percentage of students by gender, race, school and grade level, by sending and rE:ceiving district. ;..nalysis of data shall bE: conducted by appropriate ADE personnel ond other persons as designated by the ADE director. Additional data may be required of the districts, a~ deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring reports. A schedule for submitting the data shall be established by the ADE. Si!lce the monitor .i.ng is massive antl encompassir,g, thE: ADE shall establish monitoring priorities as follows: 1. Programs and services supported by special state desegregation funding including compensatory education, magnet schools, majority to minority transfers and related transportation. 2. Low achieving schools. 3. Schools with new principals. 4. Any situation identified as unusual. 5. Expanded monitoring as resources permit. 7 1t.0ni t.oring ncti vi ties shall be coordinated by the ADE Equity Assistance Center. The site visitation will be conducted by a t.cam of no less than two members and no more than five members. At least one te.am member will be an education professional from th~ J\u0026gt;.DE. The Equity Assistance Ct:?nter may conduct random monitoring to ensure the quality of monitoring procedures. Since data analysis is essential to the monitoring process, the state requests the Court to instruct the three districts to provide the ADE all data necessary to implement the monitoring acti ,1i ties. REPORTING The ADF. sr1al l provide a written report to the parties and the Court on a semiannual schedule initially. These initial reports will be on FeDruary 1 (or nearest workday) and July 15 (or 11earest workday) of each year or as directed by the Court. The Equity Assistance Center shall be responsible for the written monitoring reports. TI1e written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Programs and serviccs receiving special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866 shall receive reporting priority. The reports will contain both financial and program information. The Ji.DE Desegregation Assistance Team shall provide technical assistance and support as necessary to implement monitoring and reporting responsibilities. Current team members are: Administration Emma Bass Sterling Ingram Robert-. Shaver Gifted/Talented Martha Bass Federal Programs Clearence Lovell Elizabeth Gaston Jncentive Schools C;uolyn Elliott Glenda Peyton Marie Parker Ear)y Childhood TBA Curriculum Lynda White Horace Snith Janita Hoskyn 3 Student Services Brenda Matthews Ma1g.ie l'o,;ell Sue Swenson Sue McKenzie Special Education Diane Sydoriak Renny Abraham Staff Development C'-ayle Teal Jackie Dedman 2taff Attornev Sharon Streett Vocational Education Jean iJcEn':.ire MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, Section II.E of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989) (hereinafter the 11 Settlement Agreement 11 ) between the Little Rock School District ( 11 LRSD 11 ) and the State of Arkansas provides that the State of Arkansas , acting primarily through the Arkansas Department of Education ( \"ADE \" ) will continue to pay its share of the Magnet School operational costs and transportation costs for the six original magnet schools (Carver, Williams, Gibbs , Booker , Mann and Parkview) ; and WHEREAS, Section II .D of the Settlement Agreement limits the State ' s magnet funding obligation so that the State is required t o provide magnet funding only to the original six magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the total seating capacity for the six original magnet schools in 1989 was 4,065 seats ; and WHEREAS, Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement can be read as limiting the State's total magnet funding obligation to 4 , 065 seats or as limiting the State's magnet funding obligation on a school-by-school basis to the 1989 capacity at each of the six original magnet schools ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Plan, LRSD reorganized its includes middle schools; and its Revised Desegregation and Education schools into a new configuration whi ch WHEREAS , the Magnet Review Committee requested and won the District Court ' s approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools ; and WHEREAS, a consequence of LRSD' s change to the middle school configuration is that some of the six original magnet schools have a greater capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and some of those schools have a smaller capacity than t hey did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement ; and WHEREAS, ADE has filed an objection with the District Court , in which it asserts that the State ' s magnet school funding obligat ions are limited, on a school-by-school basis, to its share of funding for students up to the 1989 seating capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, LRSD has filed a motion with the Court requesting , among other things, that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the State's magnet school funding obligation beyond its s hare of funding for a total of 4,065 students for all six original magnet schools; - in the alternative, LRSD's motion requested that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the number of magnet seats funded by the State for certain individual magnet schools; and EX HI B l:T 5 WHEREAS, the LRSD and the State wish to amicably resolv~ their differences concerning the effect of LRSD ' s restructuring on the State ' s obligation to fund the six original magnet schools . THEREFORE , it is understood and agreed between ADE (on behalf of the State) and the LRSD as follows: LRSD shall withdraw its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement to the extent it seeks an increase, beyond a total of 4,065 seats, of the State ' s obligation to fund the six original magnet schools, and LRSD will not take an appeal from the District Court ' s order denying its motion to so increase the State's obligation. ADE shall withdraw its objection to District Court approval of a change in the number of seats proportionately funded by ADE at S of the 6 original magnet schools, provided that ADE will not be required to fund more than a total of 4,065 seats for all 6 original magnet schools collectively. The withdrawal of LRSD ' s and ADE's motions and objections is based upon their agreement that the restructuring of the LRSD's schools was intended , as part of LRSD's Revised Desegregation Plan, to enhance the quality of education in the LRSD and was not instituted solely as a means to increase the State's magnet school funding obligations. Nothing in this agreement should be construed, interpreted or asserted as a waiver of LRSD's or the ADE ' s ability to seek future modifications of the Settlement Agreement in regards to the seating capacities or funding of the magnet schools, or the LRSD's or ADE's right to object to proposed changes in seating capacities or funding obligations for the magnet schools, based upon factors other than the LRSD's restructuring of its schools under its Revised Desegregation Plan. ff Executed this!:!_ day of June, 2000. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By=~--------------- Christopher Heller 2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT AND THE STATE OF ARKANSAS This Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School Di:strict (\"LRSD\"), and the St ate of Arkansas (the ''State\"), by and through the State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Jvfike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shall collectively be referred to as the Parties. RECITALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the Staie are parties to the l 989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (\"] 989 Settlement Agreement\"); WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes cen ain obligations on the State bur cont ains no provision st ating when those obligations end; WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unit ary and released from federal court monit oring and supervision but is concerned that if it is decl ared unitary the State may seek to 1erminat e it s obligations under the J 989 Settlement Agreement; \\\\THEREAS, pursuant to Section VJ .B. of the 1989 Settlement Agr eement, th e State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of $20,000,000.00 (twemy milli on dollars), and there is present ly a dispu1e between the State and the LRSD as to whether tho se loans ,:vill be fo rgiven or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the ] 989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, under the S1a1e's current funding formula fon public school distric1s, LRSD's per pupil revenue affects the total amount of fonding whi ch 1he State must distribute through the fo rmula; WHEREAS, how LRSD sm.,ctures its bond debt affects LfSD's per pupil revenue; Page J of 8 EX HIB IT b WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to S1rucrure its bond debt' so as to minimize the financial impact on the State; WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following te~s and conditions: AGREEMENTS 1. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good I faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the tennination of this Agreement, whichever comes first. 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11. 8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSD's bond application as submitted on February )9, 2001. 3 . ln order to facilitate and encourage LRSD's efforts 10 attain complete unitary status and release from court supervision, the State agrees that it will not seek tci modify or terminate any of the State's obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up lO arid including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to pangraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaskj County Special School District, and/or the North Litile Rock School District obtain panial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3 . l Provided, however, that this Agreement does 1101 li~it, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the State\\ability to seek modification or tennination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Setllement Agreement (including P age 2 of 8 - as follows: 4_] The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen mmion dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section YI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. ,Any and al1 funds in the joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of i the 1989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable. 4.2 In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000_00 (five million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl_B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay these loans if the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July l, 2004. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4 .3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is rel~eved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these Joans irno a joint escrow account established by 1he State and the LRSD pursuant to Section  Vl.B of the l 989 Settlement Agreement. 4-3 For puJ7Joses of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. Jn the event an ord'er granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court super,vi sion as of July 1, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Coun but is appealed and Page 4 of 8 subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of interest and principal as set forth in Sections YI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the St.ate the cuinulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2_ 4.4 The Parties shal1 promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VJ.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement fhat is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 43 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limi1 ed to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court. 4.5 In the event this Agreement is tenninated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Panies shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable re solution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Setllement Agreement. ln the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropria1e with regard to said loans, including but not limited to sedung appropriate relief fi-om the Court. In the event such1relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the panies related to its negotiation or execution. shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD Page 5 of 8 .. 4 .6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, but the Coun approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4 .6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and ~bligations of the Panies shal1 I remain in full force and effect. In such an event, the ,Parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Panies may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate reljeffrom the Coun. )n the event such relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms oftrus Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. 5. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execu1ion. 6. This Agreement will 1erminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if fhe LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from couT1 supervision by June 30, 2004 . 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed m the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CJV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Coun shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out oft his Page 6 of 8 - Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legaJiry of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State. 1t is speci:fically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion=with the Joshua Jnten,enors. I 9. AJJ covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10. This Agreement is entered into as of the ~ay of Ma~ch, 2001, by the undersigned officers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8 \"~ / , , / 'l n\" , ~ nl'l.1 f 'T\u0026gt;V / T'\\V \" l l\"\\ r- A\"\"-, LITTI.,E ROCK SCHOOL DlSTRJCT BY: AR.KANSAS DEPARfMENT OF EDUCATION BY: / Page 8 of 8    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_1738","title":"District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order.","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":["2002-04"],"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 School District","Joshua intervenors","School employees","Educational law and legislation","Magnet schools","Retirement","Insurance","Educational planning","School improvement programs","School integration","Students","African Americans--Education","School enrollment","School attendance","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century"],"dcterms_title":["District Court records of Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2000 and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order."],"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/1738"],"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   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Court's order dated March 1, 2002; District Court, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, order; Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' notice of filing agreements as required by order filed March 1, 2002; District Court, second motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua intervenors' notice of filing as required by order filed March 1, 2002; 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 RECEIVED APR -1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") files the agreements identified below and attached hereto as required by the Court's order filed March 1, 2002: I. Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD; 2. Early Childhood Special Education agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD andNLRSD; 3. Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: unitary status, sale of bonds and $20 million loan. 4. Memorandum of Understanding between the LRSD and the State re: magnet seats. 1 5. Agreement between the LRSD and Knight dated February 6, 1999, re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 1Attached is what the LRSD believes to be the final draft of that agreement. Counsel for the LRSD could not locate an executed copy of the agreement in their files. - 6. Agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua and Knight dated February 8, 1999 re: teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 7. Settlement Agreement between the LRSD and PCSSD dated February 9, 1999 re: pooling agreement and teacher retirement and health insurance funding. 8. Agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 re: past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring of the LRSD. 9. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992, as modified and incorporated into Section 4 of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Section E of PCSSD's Plan 2000 (not attached). 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989 (not attached). The \"Allen Letter\" dated May 31 , 1989. Magnet Stipulation dated February 16, 1987 (not attached). M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986 (not attached). Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCS SD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCTA regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. 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 BYoiu~:c. t-~d' Fendley, Jr. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 1, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 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 (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 A. COVER PAGE Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program , PROJECT TITLE Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 1. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT a. Institution Little Rock School District and University of Central Arkansas Please check ~ categcry: Recruilment -L Preparation __ Professional Dev. b. Street/P.O. Box_ __- -\"9'\"'4. .1.7. \"--\"G\"\"e'\"'\"y\"\"er-'S\"\"p'-'-r'-'-in_,g=-s.:..R:.:o.:a=-d_ ___c . City Little Rock GRANT APPL/CATION NO. d. County ___ P-'u=la~s\"'\"k'\"\"i ___________ e. State_\"\"'A'\"'R ___ f. Zip Code. _ __:.7-=2=20=9._ __ _ g. PROJECT DIRECTOR(S) Name _ W.;..:.;:a:.:.:n.:d=-a ,B:.:a:.;:s:.:.:k:..:.;in:.:.s..:a:.:..:n.:d..;.Ka::ac.:.:.th.:.:.;lee=-=n'-\"A..,t,.,,ki::..,.n:::..s _______________ _ Email: WFBaskila)MCC.LRSD.Kl2.AR.US Telephone: 501-570-4144, 501-224-7736 and 501-450-5429 Department: Career and Technical Education Fax: 501-570-4144 and 501-224-7736 2. NAME(S) OF COLLABORATING SCHOOL 3. NAMES, TITLES AND PHONE #'S OF COLLABORATING SCHOOUCOLLEGE OFFICIALS Dr. Kathleen Atkins, Chair of Early Childhood and Special Educ. 501-450-5429 DISTRICTIS) AND COLLEGES Little Rock, North Little Rock, Pulaski County Special School District, UCA, UAPB, UALR, and Henderson PERSONS WHO WILL PROVIDE INSTRUCTION (name and department) A Dr. Alvin Futrell, ColleQe of Education at Henderson and Dr. Kathleen Atkins, ColleQe of Education at Univ of Central AR  Or. Bill GeiQer, ColleQe of Education at UALR 3. Or. Dorethea Davis, College of Education at University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 6. PROPOSED FUNDING 7a. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT a. Grant Request $ 47,400 .00 (#) OF APPLICANT INSTITUTION(S): b. Applicant Match $ 48,050 .00 .00 7b. FEDERAl. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT (#) OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS SERVED: c. Cooperating Partner Match $ $ 1---------------+--------------i d. Other .00 Ba. PROJECT START 8b. PROJECT DURATION e. TOTAL $ 95,450 .00 JANUARY 1, 2002 12 MONTHS 9. PROJECT DIRECTOR NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 10. 11 . AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR GRANT ACTION TAKEN a. Awarded ____ _ b. Rejected ____ _ :eturn for amendment _____ _ d. Withdrawn _____ _ NAME (Print): Wanda Baskins Kathleen Atkins SIGNATURE: 12. FUNDING a. Grant Award $ b. Applicant Match $ c. Cooperating Partner $ Match d. Other $ e. TOTAL $ TITLE: DATE: TITLE: DATE: 13. REMARKS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 TOT Program Director Chair/Early Childhood TOT Project Director Chair Early Childhood ...;  EXHIBIT \\_--------~------..J-----~---------~1 I !,. IC 8. PROJECT ABSTRACT Arkansas Department of Higher Education Grant Competition - FY2002 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Program Please type. Complete all items on both sides. This form will be submitted to the Governor's office. PROJECT TITLE: Teachers of Tomorrow 2002 INSTITUTION: University of Central Arkansas PROJECT DIRECTOR(S): Wanda Baskins (Little Rock School District) Dr. Kathleen Atkins (U.C.A) PARTICIPATING LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS: Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District Category chosen ___X _T eacher Recruitment and Retention _____ Teacher Preparation ~ ___ Teacher Professional Development (check which area) Mathematics Science __ Foreign Language __ Special Education NUMBER OF ANTICIPATED PARTICIPANTS: _330 _In-Service Teachers --- Pre-Service Teachers _50_ College Faculty _350_ Other (Explain) Celebration in Teaching Program Banquet and Hall High Symposium PROJECT RATIONALE (Brief statement of assessed needs) : According to The National Education Association we are facing the most critical teacher shortage in history . Nationwide, some 2.4 million teachers will be needed in the next 11 years because of teacher attrition, retirement, and increased student enrollment. An estimated 6 percent of the nation's teaching force leaves the profession and 7 percent change schools per year. The National Center of Education Statistics report twenty percent of all new teachers will leave the field of teaching within three years, while nearly fifty  percent of new teachers in urban areas will exit the profession their first five years of teaching . As we face higher teacher attrition rates and decreased number of graduates in teacher education programs, public school student enrollment will continue to increase. By 2008 public school enrollment will exceed 54 million, and approximate 2 million increase over today's enrollment. - While research based statistics on teacher shortage in Arkansas are difficult to locate, districts in the state are finding that hiring new teachers is becoming more problematic (\"School Districts Make Sweet Deals to Attract Teachers,\" Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 1999). The Arkansas Department of Higher Education 2 disseminated data in 2000 on the number of graduates with Baccalaureate and Master's Education Degrees in Arkansas from 1994-1999. This data indicates fewer number of students graduated with education degrees jiSE and MSE degrees combined) in 1999 than in previous years. Clearly this will have an impact on the . ilability of future teachers. Recruitment of future teachers must also focus on quality. With the current state and national emphasis on student achievement, we must recognize in order to improve student achievement we must improve the quality of teaching. Our future teachers of Arkansas must receive preparation programs that ensure the building of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of a qualified teacher. The Teachers of Tomorrow Program seeks to continue long-range teacher recruitment efforts for Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County School Districts by promoting and expanding the future teacher clubs/classes and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. Although fewer college students are pursuing teaching careers, the redesign of the Teachers of Tomorrow Program using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet and Pro Team curriculum is encouraging. The Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQE) funding is vital for the enhancement of secondary and middle school classes being offered, and is needed to help provide networking opportunities for educators in the state who are interested in teacher recruitment and retention. \"For many, the pre-teaching experience acts as a springboard to college, career, and personal relationships where learning can be applied and nurtured.\" (May 2001 Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.) 3 GOALS (Statement of specific learning and performance objectives for participants): 41,als of the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, TOT 2002, are to: 1) implement elective classes designed to encourage secondary students to consider teaching as a profession (using the South Carolina Teacher Cadet curriculum) 2) promote networking and recruitment opportunities between public schools, two-year colleges, and four year institutions 3) develop an awareness about the teacher shortage in Arkansas and 4) complete training/certification of two Teacher Cadet trainers. GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTION (ABSTRACT} which will be shared publicly (200 words): The Teachers of Tomorrow program seeks to continue its long range teacher recruitment efforts for Arkansas by promoting and expanding the existing Teachers of Tomorrow program and by providing activities that will broaden its mission and service into other areas of the state. The activities will include: providing materials and training for secondary school teachers to implement the Teacher Cadet class (senior high school) curriculum developed by the South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment.  conducting a statewide Teacher Recruitment Conference in fall 2002 that is designed for secondary and higher education students, public school administrators and faculty, and teacher educators.  providing the means for two Arkansas teachers to become Teacher Cadet trainers (by completing final cycle of training in Little Rock summer workshop).  designing and distributing a teacher recruitment pamphlet for students in two-year colleges . .  supplying Teachers of Tomorrow Clubs and TOT coordinators in the tri-district area with support in order to plan student activities and carry out various collaborative activities.  Expand elective classes to include middle school students exploring teaching as a career (using the South Carolina Pro Team Curriculum).  Create a TOT website which will include a database for club and class participants. Institutions involved in the Teacher of Tomorrow collaborative include: Little Rock School District, North - ittle Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, Henderson State University, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, and University of Arkansas at Little Rock. 4 . .03/ 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 I t \u0026gt;    EQUITY Pl.FIL SERVICE .. I( : ~. .- 2-1-20. 02. 1.0 ;~ 14 . F.'R (JII! TO:';'l~ i\"---------~ ~- ------------=---- : . :  .. I ' I ; ; CONSOLIDATED PRESCHOOL ' GRANT APPLICATION FOR I ' SPECIAL EDUCATION AND ; : RELATED SERVICES : :::  : I .. . . ,   ~ L  \\ . . I j ; .. ' ; ; ' I I . I I SECTION6J.9 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH I I DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT ' I. -AND STATE FUNDS /: I :1 : I' ' ~ ' ' ' : : fi ' i ; ' : ; ' ARKANSAS DEPARTivfENT OF EDUCATION ., : , ; ' 2001-02 .. ' : ,. f .. I .. i ; I .. ; . . '. ' ., : ; J .. ' : -- - -- ..  i l .~ IC p~ 02/16 P . 002\"'01 .1 i: ! .. , i ' :t ., '  ' . I ; : : - '' i ! ii !/ ~ -. '  ! ' : ; EXHIBIT z ' I I i '  ' . ;., , - 1: : . ,. :i l !! I I EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '34900254 ASSURANCES AND AGREEMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL SERVlCE AGENCIES . Adopdon of Proccdul\"C$: The applicant agrees to implement Spectal Education and Related '. Srrvi~~: Procedural \u0026amp;cp,tremuit:l and Program Standards and S~cial d11catlon Ellgib/Jily ; Cr/Jeri a and Program Guidelims for Childrun with Dlsabilitie$. Ages 3  21 to ensure that it  provid~ special eduwion services to emlble clu1dren with disabilities, ages three to; five~ to ' participate in regular educational programs and that each child has a properly developed , inc,vidualized education program. ; AdvJSory Committee: Where several LEAs consolidated their prcschool .scmccs, the applicant :. agrees to establish a local advisory committee. The committee must consist of the special ; edu~tion supervisors from participating LEAs and at least one superintendent. The committee : will be co-chaired by the early childhood coordinator and a LEA special education supervisor : select~ by the committee. The committee will meet at least bi-monthly, DocumentAtion of each meeting will be kept en file. : A!,istive Technology: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300,308, shall ensure that . assistive technology devices or assistive technology~ or both, as defined in 34 CFR 300.5 ,  300,6, are made available to a: child with a disability if required as a part of the child's (1)  Special Ed1.1cation under 34 CFR 300,26, (2) R~ated services under 34 CFR 300,24, or (3)  Supplementary aids and ser'.Vices under 34 CFR 300,28 and 300,SSO(b)(2), : Child Ctrc: The applicant assures that preschool grant funds shall not be used for the securing ' ofbasic child care and that these monies be used only for the provision of special education and rcl~ted services rend~ by,. a qualified provider. It i\u0026amp; pemussible ro expend preschool grant funds to pay costs associ.ited with a regular daycare placement when it is determined ~hat: ' l,;'~stidr educational placement-is needed to provide :a Free Appropriate Public Education ' (FAP.E) to a child, and  . ,. I ~- ; ; ' '  2. ::sbch:educarlqnal placement is necessary to satisfy th~ provisions of the cl\\ild's individualii=  , : education program (lEP). The decision to place a child'\"in, a rc:gula.r daycare program -win be made on a ca1\u0026amp;-by-asc oasis, The State guidelines for a Integrated Preschool Settine must be used in determining a child's ; riee.d(for,an educatjonai pla~ent in a regular daycare program .  1., : , . . Complaint ProcufuttS of ID State! The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 660, ' ~ that it will provide a. copy of the wrinen procedures fur Complaint Management to parents of children with disabilities when they llre notified of their procedural safeguar\u0026lt;is, 2 .. .. , ' I PAGE 03/16 P.003-'014  :i ; 1 i ' I ,''- . 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 'i ;_  . :I . l\". FR-, 21-20 02 10~ 14 ~: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: ';),q~e0c:54 , Coordination of Projects: The applicant, in accordance with EDGAR 34 CFR 76.580, as~ : to the extent possible, it coordinate each of its projects with other activities that are in the same ; geographic area served by the project and targeted groups. Appropriate methods of coordination  include:   l. :Planning the project with organizations and individuals who have sinu1ar objectives or concerns; : 2.  Sharing information, facilitie~, staff, services or other resourc~;  J .. ~ngaging in joint activities such as instruction, needs assessment, evaluation, monitoring, technical assistance or swf training; ;. 4., 1N?_t ~uplicating or counteracting the effects of funds used under 9thcr programs; ilild S. Using the project funds to increa.(e the impact of funds made available under other programs , . :for the same purpose. Dls:ciplinnry Information: The applicant, in accordarn:e with 34 CFR JOO .Sl9  300.529, ' as~r'es thnt it will maintain in the records ofa child with a disability a statement of any current  or -previous di5ciplinary action that has been taken against the child and transmit such statei:nent -~ to th~ same extent that such disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted with, the  studt;tt records ofnondisahled children. If the State has such a policy, and the child transfers from one school to another, the transmission of any of the child's records must include: both the child1 s current individuaftz;cd education program and any such statement of current or previous disciprmary action that has been taken !lgainst the child. ' Idui!:itional Responsibilil)'! The applicam agrees to provide special education and related  services on the behalf of assigned LEAs for duldrcn with disabilities, ages three to five; under  Section 619 of IDEA 97. The applicant will develop an inter-agency agreement with the: : appropriate Head Start pro,rain for the provision of special education a.nd related services as specified in the Memo~-um ofUndersr.anding (between the Arkansas Department ofE.ducation and !_iead Start) consi!tent with the federal regulations for Head Stcrt, Public Law 102A01 . . E1cess Cost: The applicant, in accordance ',l,,'ith 34 CFR 300.184  300.185, a.$SUres that funds pr9ided under Section 619 of IDEA 97 wit! be used Q!ll:l for excess costs. Extended School Ycsr: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.309, shall ensure that ~ded school year $er-vices are available as n~ as to provide a m:e appropriate public education. H~r.ing Aids: The applieant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.3031 shall ensure that the hearing aids wom in school by children with hearing impairments. including d~ are functioning properly . . . . I : . -: .. . : ; :,, PAGE 04/16 P,l!IEM'01,q -I !: rnunv PUPIL SERVICE T0:'3'1~4 Least Restrictive Environment: The applicant, in accord Mee with 34 CFR. 300.SSO - 300.556, assures it has adopted the policies and procedures of Special Education and l~laled Serv/\"3: Procedural Requirements and Program Standards, Section IJ, pages 1 and 2; and Section 17, pag$2. I L\u0026amp;2J lnterngcncy Committee: The applicant agrees to establi$h a local interagency committee comr.osed oflocal agencies and int~ parties for the dissemination of information and to establish a network of services. The committee will meet at le~ quarterly. Documentation of attendees and minutes of i;aeh mc::ting must be kept on file. Meet[nis: The applicant agrees that individuals employed under this application will p81t!cipate in training institutes and scheduled meetings sponsored by the Arkansa. Department of 4.u~tion, Sp~ial Edu~tion. I N o.n~crimhultioa and Employment of tndividuala wil.h Disnbilitics: The applicant assu~ that the program assisted under. Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be operated ,n compliance with Title!45 of the Code ofFedenl Regulations, Pa.rt 84. (A formal ast:Urance statemem should be on -~e with the U.S. Dept. of Health and Hllman Services.) , I Nonsuppbnting: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.230, usures that funds prqvided. under Section 619 of IDEA 97 will be used to supplement and, to the cctcnt ptjlciicablc, increuc the level of State a.nd Local funds e,\u0026lt;pended for the education of children with disabilities, ages three to 6ve. and in no case to supplant those State and Local funds. :: ..- :; ,, : . Nti~ber or Days for l\u0026gt;ired Services: The prcscltool instructional calendar shall consist of200 days of direct services .funded by the prescltool grant. The first day of services can be Jio earlier th~\\August' 1. Dim:t services will cease by June 30. An audit will be peronned to verify sctvice delivery of200 days; Faiturc to comply will result in an audit e,c~on. Please provide a school calendar or llstin.g of day per momh that services will he provided. Please use the caJ~dar included in the application. Personnel Devdopment: The applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR. 300.221, assures that it ba.-. tiled':with the State information to demonstrate that (1) all personnel necessary to cany O'llt Section 619 o!lDEA 97 within the jurisdictign of the agency are adequate!y prepared cons~ wi~ the requirement of 34 CFR 300.380- 300.382, and (2) to the extent the public agency determine! appropriate, it shall contribute to and use the Comprehensive System of P~onnel Development of State established under 34 CFR 300.135. 1 f, . . Foliciet .and Program, Consistent with EUgfbillty Provisions: The appficant. in accordance withi 34 CFR 300.220, assures that it has in cffcc:t policies.. procedure! and programs- that are ~$istei,t with Stare policies and procedlftS established under 34 CFR 300.121 - 300.156 . . The applics.nt mUSt have on file with the State polici~ and procedu~ on the following: (l} Child Identification, (Z) Confidentiality, and (\u0026gt;) Individualized Education Program. I I ' 4 ': I ' . / PAGE 05/16 P,00S\"014 / . 1: .; 03/ 21/2002 10: 33 5014901352 l1 : ~~~ ;10:1~ FROM: . j iii . EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TOt94980a54 iL\\ ,  .-;,, Procrdund Safeguards: The spplicant, in accordance with 34 CPR 300.500 - 515 300.517 incorybrat~ by rcfcn:nc~ tile proi:ed1.2~ of the SEA in Special Education and Relatfd  Stsl'Vices: Procedural Reqz/iJ-emrmts and Program Standards., Sections 4 through 16. , \"ro,grnm Options: The applicant, in aoc;ordance with 34 CFR. 300.124, usures compliance with th~provi~on of.a continuum ofser-lice options. The program options that arc designed to meet thejull educational goal in pre.school education are as follows: 1. , Preschool class on the public school campus 2. Regular p~hool (including Head Start)  3. Special Day Service Facility licensed by Developmental Disability Services  4. 'Home ServiQ?S 5. Itinerant Service - Services provided to children through an itinerant mode for intensive _;_ ,  :.i?struction which may~ developmentally appropriate or therapeutic. Primary use of.this '  service may be speech-l11nguage pathology given by a qualified provider or special instruction . by an e.u-ly childhood special education consultant teacher. 6 .. '. '.Hospital 7. Re!idential  Note: Each child mu!t be presented with at least three placement options (settings) wh~re the IEP can be appropriately implemented.  P~t~tion in tvnlu!!rion Procedures: The applicant, in ~ccordance with 34 CFR 300.530. ' 300.536, adopts by reference the procedures of the SEA in Special EducaJJon and Related . Se.ry/ce3: Procedural Requirements a,id Program Standards, Sections 4, 6 and 7.  I f   , , Pul\u0026gt;l~c! Control of Funding: The appUce.nt assures that control of funds provided under Section '.. 619 qflDEA 97 and Statc/I.oc.al funds committed to Special Edu.cation in accordance with Ark 6de Ann. 6-203 l 0 and title to property acquired with those funds is in a public agency for the ._ \\lSCS and purposes-authorized and as provided in the Mansas Department of Education, School  and :Educational Service Cooperative F'inincial Accounting Manual. . .. J:lccdrd, lhld Reports: The:applicant, in accordance with 34 CFR 300.240, agrees to ;provide information as may be neceasary to enable the State Education Agm:;y to perf'mm its duticz, and  the applicant agrees to -keep such records a, the State Educ:itional Ageney may require to ensure '. rhe'~rrectness and verification ofthe iruorma.tio~  Rctciltion of Records: Education Department General Adrninisir:\u0026gt;tive Regulations (EDGAR) 34: CFR. 76.734 requires that recipients of Section 619 funds retain for five (5) years after completion of the activity for which they use grant or subgrant funds, any record needed to fully show compliance with pn)~ and administrative requirements. The Special Education Office !fas been advised by the U.S: Department ofEducation, Office of. Special Education Programs, 5 PAGE 07/16 .-.-,w. .. I   I I I I; Ii !' ~: 1 .. ... ,''. EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ that~ include individualized education progmns (IDs). The ilRplir.ant as,w~ to take all of the necessan: steps to retain nil records for at tesst five (S} years after tbe completion of the activitv S~ces :ind Aid.s That Also ~enetit No.nd.i!abled Oindren: The applicant, in accordance with: 34 CF'R. 300.235, as!ures that costs of special education and related services and supp/ementary aids and services provided in a regular class or other education-related setting to 2 ,}illci with a disability are in accordance with the individualized education program of a. child, even if one or more nondisabkd children benefit from such services. . I . Gtn~rnl Education l\"n,visiona Act: The applicant assures that it will comply with :the assurances set forth below as stated in the General Education J\u0026gt;rovisions Act in compliance with 20 llS.C. 1.232 e(b)(J),(S),(7),(A)\u0026amp;(B),(S) and (9). The general application submitted by a i pu~li~ asency under subsection (a) shall \u0026amp;et forth assurances -   1)  1'hiU the public agency will administer each program covered by the application in  accordance with all appUe2ble statutes. regulations, program plans, and applications; ; 2) : That the control of funds pr.ovided to the public agency under each program and titl~ to : property acquired with those funds, will be in a public agency and that a public aiency will  . :~minister those funds and property;  : 1' 3) .. That the public agency will use fiscal control and :fund accounting procedure\u0026amp; that will ensure  .' P,roper disbursem~ of, and accounting for, Federal funds paid to that agency under each \\ ;:program; t) ;i'l:h~t the public agency will make reports to the State agency or board and_ :to :,the .. ) Commissioner u may reasonably be necessary to enable the Stare agency or board: and:the ;: .. -Commissioner to perform their duties and that the public asency will maintain such records, J ncluding the records required under Section 437, and provide access to those records, as !he  St~te agency or board or the Commission~ deem necessary to pem,rm their dutic~ 5) . That the public agency will provide reasonable opportuniti~ for the participation QY ~e~ : parents, and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals in the planning for an ;  : operation of each program;  6) ,That any application. evaluation, periodic program plan or report refating to each program : will be made readily available to parents and othet memben of t~c general public; 7) . That in the case of any project involving construction - A.) The project is not inconsistent with overall Staie plans for the construction of school facilities, and 6 . ,,, : PAGE 08/16 P.007\"81~ .j ., ! j. I  1 ; . i ! !:\u0026gt;Ul4'.:H:H 352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: '3\"t~  / B) 1n developing plans f'or construction, due consideration will be given to excellence of   architecture and d~ign and to c:ompliance with standard~ prescribed by th1: Scc:~buy under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in order to emure that fkcilitica ' ' construeted with the use ofFedcral funds are acc:!Ssiblc to and usable by individuals with disabilities; . . . I S) '.That the public: agency has adopted emctive procedures for acquirilli and disscmi~atirig to teachers and admmistrators participating in each prosram significant information from , cduational research, demonstrations, and .similar projects, and for adoptini where  I '  appropriate, promising educational p~cticcs developed chrough such projects; and 9) .: That none of the funds expended undc:r any applicable pYOgnm wtll be used to ' acquire equipment (Including computer software) in any inStance in which such acquisition results . , . _ir,i a direct financial benefit to any organization representing the interests of the purchasing ,.. :: entity or its employees or ~y affiliate of such an organization.  Notice of Required Actinn~ by tbe SEA . The SEA is required under Section 619 of IDEA 97 to pr~vide notice to public agencies of the foll,o~ing actions: Direct Services by the Seate .Educ:ttion Agcnty: The Arkansas Department cf Education (ADE), Speci~l Education.Unit has the responsibility to ensure that the provisions of a free appropriate public education (F APE) are met for eligible stud~s with disabilitie5, ages 3 - 21. Consistent with the provision! afJ4 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) 300.360, a State Education Agency (SEA) shall use the payments tlm othei:wiae would have been available to an LEA or to a State agency to provide special ed~cation arid r.cl~ scrvic:es directly to children with disabilities residing in the area served by that local agency, or for whom tha1 State agency is n:sponsiblc, if the SEA determines that the LEA or Stat~ agency - a. Hu not provided the infonnation needed to establish the eligibility of the agency undsr  Part B of lhe Act; . -~. Is unable to establish and maintain programs ofFAPE that meet the requirements of this , ',! I ; part; .. :c.  1s unable or unwilling robe consolidated with one or more LE.As in order to. establish and ; ,,'. ,; .; maintain the programs; or  , d. Has one or more children with disabilitiC$ who .can best be served by a regional or State program or service-delivery system designed t9 meet the needs of these childmi, 7 PAGE 10/16 P. 008-'e:. :, ., :J i I . , :: i , ;ii . r:: I . i i I ; ~: 1 ! 1r :l i 1:. i 1.JJ l I ... . !: .  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO: 9\"1900254  ..: , ! , When It is brought to the attention of the ADE through: .  ai  The enforcement of a decision .from an Impartial Due Process Hearing; b.  A complaint invcstignrion under the Complain, Procedures of the State; . c: Compliance monitoring of a public s.gency; or ' .  ,: l A request from a parent or public; aicncy tha~ the SEA assume the responsibility for . Direct Services; , I . . '. th~:ADE, Special EducatiotrUnit will implement the following procedures before final action is ' tak;ai by the ADE to assume the provision of Direct Services to an eligible student(s) with ~'-, ~i~iliti~s, ages 3 - 21. 1.  The Associate Director for Special Education will: :  a; Provide written notice co the public ag~cy that the SEA ha.s re3$on to suspea t~t it is . not providing a free appropriate public education to an eligible student(s) with .  ; : , disabiliti.es. ages 3 - 21, on rhe basis of one or more of the conditions set forth in 34 CFR . 300.360    -:bl  State the sourcc(s) of the_ infonnatio~ that has led.the SEA to suspect that the district is . not providing a fu;c appropriate public erlucution for the student(s) in question. c. Appoint a Team to conduct an investigation onhe situ.stionfc;omplaint.  I ; ; l.  ,The Investigative Team will review the public agency's provision ofFAPE in light of the  ; 'conditions set forth in 34 CFR 300.360.  . . : 3 . . The Team will follow the procedures the ADE has ~opted for its Complaint Procedures of ' ; the, Slate, as provided for in 34 CFR 300.660  300.662. ; . :.; ; i . : . . . . : 4,:;1The.Team will provide a written report and submit it to the Associate Ditectot. S' .. iF'.ollowing receipt of the report. the Associate Director will notify the parties concerned as \u0026gt;to the findings of the !nvc.,tigative Temn.  6 . . : Showd sufficient _evidence exist -to demonstrate that the public agency is not providing F ~  as a result ofa condition in 34 CFR 300.360, the Associate Director \"'ill notify the puplic agency that the ADE. intends to take the neccasary 3teps to provide Direct Servi~c:s to an . '.. .eligible swdcnt(s) with disabilities, ages 3 -21, within the jurisdiction of the public'ageticy. 8 i :' PAGE 11/16 P.089\"1U\u0026lt;I ,i .i ; ! I .! . . . ! u~, ~ ~l~UU~ 10 ; ~~ OOlq~Ul3~L EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE J: -~1-2002 :nh1, ml'!= TQ:94900254 \"I . : r . . .. . ,. .   : r ., . , I : !; ~1 , . i 1. I I r,=- I :1 -,;   1! ' I_ l i \\ : ;: ,. ! r  1 :1 t J! ! l I I' 1'. ! '\"i' ;: ! ' ~ ~ .' ''. ; 7. ,The public agency will be provided notice that it h~ the opportunity for a hearing on this :matter before the State's chief e\u0026lt;.il.lcation official, (the Director of the AD), or his/her - ~~  ; \u0026amp;.  :To :avail itself of tM opportunity for a hearint on the proposed provision of Direct Services : by the APE, the Chief Administrative Official of the P\\Jblic Agency must $Ubmit a written request for a hearing to the Associate Director for Special E\u0026lt;iucation within 3 O days of notice or the proposed action by the ADE. - 9.  'Within ten (lO) busines; day.s ofretQpt by the Associllte Director afa written request by the ;-pilblic agency for a huring, the ADE Director will .set a mutually agreeable dtte, time and .location for the hearing and advise the Chief Administrative Official of the Public Age'rq of this in writing. 1 -: ' I .. _ ! . io. The ADE Director, or dcsignee, will consider the evidence presented by the Chief  Administrative Official of the Public Agi:ncy and the Associate Director for Special  'Education, or designee.    11. Within ten (10) business days af completion of the hearing. the ADE Director will submit :written findinss of fact, the decision and reasons fof the ruling with regard to the provision . ; -of:Pirect Services by the ADE. in compliance with 34 CFR 300,360. ; 12. lfthe AD. determines that its action v,,ag contrary to state or fodE:ral statutes or regul:itions '.t~at govern the applicable program, the ADE shall rescind its action . . ! . : .. J'.3. Public agencies will be notitied of their right to ap.peal a decision of the ADe Director to - ;~h~old IDEA- Part B funds to \\he Secretary ofqjucation, U.S. Departm\u0026lt;:nt of'Education. 14. The public age,cy must file a notice oFthe appeal wtth the Secretary wi\\hin 20 days after the : :public agency has been ~otitied by the ADE Director of the tinaf decision of the hearing. - 1.S. 1)lc .Associate Diraotor fbr Special Education will advise the Administrator, Grants ~f!d Dara )vfanagement, in writing as to when to witlihold and when to restore IDEA -! P~ B payments to che Public Agency. ; ! t ' ' I : WhJ ~~ ADE has det~ncd that it will assu~ rhe provision of Direct Services tci ensure F APE,. the A.OE may provide special education and related scr.-ices in sucll a manner and at !Uch lo~ons (including, regional or State centers) as the ADE consideTS appropriate.  i . Public Agency Compliance: If the SEA, in accord~ with 3 4 CTR 300: 197, after reasonable ~ notide .and an opportunity. fer a hearing; finds that a public agency that na.s been determined to , I '  I 9 ' ' l '  . '. PAGE 12/16 ~ .~ld'IOl\"' I  ,. 'i :j i :, ,, . _p3t 21/ 2002 10:33 5014901352 ~;-21-2002 : 10: i 7. FROM:  EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'\\900aS4 ' j -   , I .  i .. l;,e-digi1\u0026gt;1e under mis :scdion ~ Awl1J to com9ly 'Mth acy reqwremem d~ed in 34 cat. 300:220 -300.250, the SEA shall reduce orma:y -not ~de any iiu1her psyments to the LEA or: stz1e ageney utd tho SEA is satl!ilcd that lhe eublic agency is complying w\\th that \\ ~~  ~ p-.i,lic agency in re.a:ipt o a notice desc:n'bcd in the first pan.graph of this section shall. by ,m~ of public~ take the mea.ues necessary to~ the pe:11de:'D)' of an action punmnt w this ~on to ~ \u0026amp;ttcntion of the publle within 1he jurisdiction of~~- -~ ~ out its funaion undet this secticn, each SEA shall co~dcr urt decisiOll resu11inl fi'om a hearing \"l,Illde:-34 CF.R. 300.S07 - 300.52\u0026amp; that is adverse ta the pubiie agem;y involnd iD'tbc ~sioca. ~cies 'Will ~c ~t othia infonnariOG by i.ignu,1 pa\u0026amp;e 10  . . .  I .  :. _m'ITfICATION . I,, ,:mt UNDERSIGNED A'U'l11ORl'ZED lW'RiS!:NTATlV?, RDOY CERTll\"Y UL\\T THE APPUCANT ACENCY,S GOVERNING BODY JIAS ~OPTE~ THE ,'BOV:t ASSURANCES AND lS Aw All or u.QU!.R.!l\u0026gt; ACIIOl\"iS )Y nm SEA . UUTIVE TO DIRECT SERVICES AND POBUC J\\GENCY COMPLIANO. '. :_ .. . ~ : . .' ; ?l'tith-Little a:d. Sdl:Xll ~ \"-nd~a.d.yQuldlXd~ i.f -~  '  ; ~ '.  ! :  !\" : . i ' ; :. \\ '. . ~ t  ~! -~ . ~  . . .  I  j 10 PAGE 13/16 I-' .16l.l'112l. .. ' ' t EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE TO:~ Au.dlo~oo l:ctu\u0026amp;;atiou Sen-ice ooperaeive ~ Chilclhoo4-Spctjal Edua\u0026amp;n  2001~ ~oo, Y~ . ~ ~ol districts ~ below hn-c established an ~emo:Ji urviee c:oopcratiw  a\\:!mmistra.tive mangemem flit 1hc purpose or providhla =arJy r;hildhood spc:cial cducatiai services in accordance widi Ark. Code AM. 6-41-~ and Section cSl 9 ot'mt IDEA 97. The ; ~e of this coopcr.mve is: ' '  'lt\\-otstnct .k1Y ~ Little a:a: I.EA.Number Supcrin~d=t's Signature l!tx1h LiC:la lt)dC ~ , 1 . School District : LEA# Sc:hool ])istrict LE.All Superlnt;ndcnt's Signature  Su~cniicut s Sign~  ,.   School Disuict LEA# School District LEAi Superilltcndcnt', Si~ Superiutcndent' s SignDJre.  :: 1  School Dinrict I .i  , , ; :, .,, LE.A.# .,  .  I . Superintendeat's ~ - .. '' ;  'School District I.EA# School District LEA# ; ' I  48 PAGE 14/16 P.012\"014 .I, .:' F I ;i ! ., . ' ' ! EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE T0:9'1900254 Authoriation . Ednca.tiOJl Senicc C-oop~tive E:nly ChilAood Sp,dal 1?:duc:i.1io~ 2001~2 School Y c:iT   The scl\\ocl districts listed 1,elow have established u educatioa service c:aoperadve . ..  ~e ammgement fonbe purpose o!providmg early childhood specai ~an '  ::: StJ'Yic:siaacariaDcc with Ark. Code Ann. 6-41-220 and Sccticn619 otlaeIDEA97. :tnc: ' ~ ~this COQye:iative is:  . .  'B:l.-ciec:ril%. ! QJ:i.lthm ~ Little lb:!( exi:z ., , Cooperative . 11ie sigr.atum bel0w verify !his arrangement 1M mtborize \\he above named coo~ to use . : : : funds a:pproprlllted by kt 1392 of 1999 to help provide services to three through nve 'fe3r old  ( i:bildd~isab-ilities.  .:;_~ ' ; '  . Si.penmen  s Signature Su~deu't' 1 Signattn .- :~9?Jl:'i 8)-03  Schoel District Soperintendem' a Signature .. . : I ; . lEAi . 1. : I.EA# .. , .... __________ _ Saperinttndeat'i Signature '! .  .,! .I;.._. - '-----,---- -~-- .,  , ,  Scllool Distiict LEA I  i . : Sc.~ool District LEA,# ,a School D~trict School District Supetiattndent' $ Signatite School District LEA :;, Superin~s SignatuR School District LEA. ,. I . ,. ' ,,I ' i EG!U11Y PUPIL SERVICE T0:~90025-4  Authorizatioa Educado11 Senice Cocp~tive bdy Owdhood Special Edutatio lOOI-G? School Year Th:\u0026amp; ~chool districts listed below haw eatabtisbcd m educatioa. iemce eoopermve . , ., - nistrative aaangeaicmfor1he purpose of-providing early childhood special edu.ciltioti sctvictt in accordance with Ark. Code Aim. 641-220 and Section 619 of the IDEA 97. ne name af1his eoopendiVe is: ,: I 'lri~ ?arly ~ ~ Y' tt''! );xx O:,oper.dive B\u0026gt;:02 LEANambl:r The si~ below verify this arrangement a:id authorize the above :named cooperative 10 use fun~ appropriated by Al:t 1392 of 1999 to hclp provide secvi~ to 'three through five year old (?hild~ with dist   I -'i  . './ ~  I ~ bx ED-01. School Dutrict . LEA# ': ' f .Superintendent's Signatutt  ' I LEA# Superintendent's Signaiure School District LEA# ;i I ,' '  1 : S11perinteo.d.el1t'1 s~ LEA# r i i . I  i ; ' . Supcrin~cndent's Sign\u0026amp;IUre School District I.EA# Superintendent's. sign~ School Di3aic:  LEA# School Dutrict ' LEA# Sup~e:nt's Sjgnatun, School :Oisaict , , ., PAGE 16/16 j\" ;  ' i ! VVr 1\u0026lt;.Vr V...L AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE STA TE OF ARKANSAS Ths Agreement is by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and the State of Arkansas (the \"State\"), by and through the State Board ofEducation, the Arkansas Department of Education and Governor Mike Huckabee. LRSD and the State shall collectively be referred to as . the Parties. REC1TALS WHEREAS, LRSD and the State are parties to the 1989 Settlement Agreement in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, (\"1989 Settlement Agreement\"); WHEREAS, the 1989 Settlement Agreement imposes certain obligations on the State but contains no provision stating when those obligations end; WHEREAS, LRSD will seek to be declared unitary and released from federal court monitoring and supervision but is concerned that if it is declared unitary the State may seek to tenninate its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State has advanced loans to the LRSD in the cumulative principal amount of$20,000,000.00 (twenty million dollars), and there is presently a dispute between the State and the LRSD as to whether those loans will be forgive~ or must be repaid pursuant to Section VI.B.(6) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; WHEREAS, under the State's current funding formula for public school districts, LRSD's per pupil revenue affects the total amount of funding which the State must distribute through the formula; WHEREAS, how LRSD structures its bond debt affects tRSD's per pupil revenue; Page I of 8 -,i EXHIBIT 3 VO/ 701 U..L .l.D.L1 .J..U . LlO rrt.A WHEREAS, the State wants LRSD to structure its bond debt so as to minimize the financial impact on the State; WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to the following terms and conditions: AGREEMENTS I. LRSD agrees to pursue complete unitary status and release from court supervision, in good faith and using its best efforts, until such complete relief has been obtained or until the termination of this Agreement, whichever comes first. 2. LRSD agrees to accelerate the sale of its bonds so that the required annual debt service payments will be 11 .8 million dollars beginning with the 2002 calendar year. The State Board of Education does hereby approve the LRSD's bond application as submitted on February 19, 2001. 3. In order to facilitate and encourage LRSD's efforts to attain complete unitary status and - release from court supervision. the State agrees that it will not seelc to modify or terminate any of the State's obligations to the LRSD under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including any reduction of the payments to LRSD resulting from the Settlement Agreement or court decisions enforcing the Agreement) from the date of execution of this Agreement up to and including June 1, 2008. This covenant shall remain in full force and effect (unless this Agreement terminates pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement) regardless of whether the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District, and/or the North Little Rock School District obtain partial or complete unitary status and release from court supervision. 3. I Provided, however, that this Agreement does not limit, and should not be construed or interpreted as limiting in any way, the State's ability to seek modification or  termination of any of its obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement (including Page 2 of 8 ~UUJ court decisions interpreting the Agreement) that relate exclusively to the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, or any other party to the action. Further, this Agreement does not prohibit the State and the LRSD from jointly petitioning the court for modification or tennination of any aspect of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, nor does it prohibit the State from asserting any and all defenses it may otherwise assert in response to any motion or allegation of the LRSD to the effect that the State has violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 3 .2 The State agrees to cooperate with and assist LRSD in opposing any challenge to the legality of this Agreement or any effort by a third-party to modify or tenninate the States' s obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Such cooperation and assistance shall include, but not be limited to, any or all of the following: (I) filing joint pleadings supporting the legality of this Agreement; (2) filing joint pleadings responding to any request to modify or terminate the State's obligations under the 1989 Settlement Agreement; (3) filing a joint appeal of any order, decision or judgment which directly or indirectly undennines this Agreement; (4) filing a joint brief opposing any appeal of an order, decision or judgment upholding this Agreement or refusing to modify or terminate the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and (5) filing joint pleadings to remove or transfer any chaUenge to the legality of this Agreement to United States District Court and to consolidate the challenge with the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866. 4. In recognition of the LRSD's efforts to obtain unitary status and complete release from federal court supervision, and to facilitate the success of the LRSD's efforts, the State and the LRSD agree Page 3 of 8 1.1:!JVV't U!\u0026gt; / ~0/U.l lllLI J. 0 . '10 r JU. as follows: 4.1 The State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay the first $15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. Any and all funds in the joint escrow account estabfo;hed by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section Vl.B of the J 989 Settlement Agreement will be released to the LRSD as soon as practicable. 4.2 In addition, with respect to the remaining $5,000,000.00 (five million dollars) in loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, the State will forgive and release the LRSD from any obligation to repay these loans if the LRSD obtains a final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision on or before July 1, 2004. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 4.3 of this Agreement, the LRSD is relieved of its obligation to make payments of principal or interest on these loans into a joint escrow account established by the State and the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 4.3 For purposes of paragraph 4.2, the phrase \"final order granting it complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision\" shall mean the entry of a final, appealable order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granting the LRSD complete unitary status and release from federal court supervision as of July 1, 2004. In the event an order granting the LRSD complete - unitary status and release from federal court supervision ~ of July I, 2004 is not entered by the District Court, or is entered by the District Court but is appealed and Page 4 of 8 ~vvu subsequently reversed in whole or in part, the LRSD shall have the unconditional obligation to repay the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2 on a payment schedule of . interest and principal as set forth in Sections VI.B(l) and (3) of the 1989 Settlement Agreement, and to immediately pay to the State the cumulative amount of any and all interest and principal payments that would have been due on the loans referenced in paragraph 4.2. 4.4 The Parties shall promptly and jointly petition the Court for any modification of Section VI.B. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement that is necessary so as to fully effectuate and make binding the terms of paragraphs 4 through 4 .3 of this Agreement, and shall take such further action as may be necessary to obtain such a modification, including but not limited to appealing any adverse decision or ruling of the District Court. 4.5 In the event th.is Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, the Parties shaJI negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI .B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event such relief is sought from the tourt, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. Page S of 8 4.6 However, in the event this entire Agreement is not terminated pursuant to paragraph 6 of this Agreement, hut the Court approval referenced in paragraph 4.4 of this Agreement is nonetheless not obtained, the provisions of paragraphs 4 through 4.6 of this Agreement shall be null and void but severable from the remainder of this Agreement, to the effect that all other promises and obligations of the Parties shall remain in fu)] force and effect. In such an event, the Parties shalf negotiate in good faith in an effort to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution of any disputes concerning the loans advanced to the LRSD pursuant to Section VI.B of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and, in the event the Parties cannot agree to such a resolution, the Parties may take whatever action they deem necessary and appropriate with regard to said loans, including but not limited to seeking appropriate relief from the Court. In the event stJch relief is sought from the Court, neither the terms of this Agreement, nor any facts or statements of the Parties related to its negotiation or execution, shall be construed or offered as evidence of any admission against interest or waiver of any kind on the part of the State or the LRSD. 5. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date of execution. 6. This Agreement will terminate and the State will have no further obligations under this Agreement if the LRSD has failed to apply to the District Court for complete unitary status and release from court supervision by June 30, 2004. 7. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall be filed in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case, U.S.D.C. No. CIV-LR-82-866, and that the United States District Court shall have jurisdiction to enforce this Agreement, to resolve disputes between the Parties arising out of this Page 6 of 8 U~/ZG/U1 lHU 10:4/ t'AA - Agreement and to hear any challenge to the legality of this Agreement. 8. This Agreement expresses the entire agreement of the parties and may not be modified or altered except by a writing executed by the authorized representatives of the LRSD and the State. It is specifically contemplated that this Agreement may be modified or amended, with the approval of the LRSD and the State, after further consultation and discussion with the Joshua Intervenors. 9. AJ1 covenants, conditions, agreements and undertakings contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective legal successors in interest and assigns of the parties. 10. This Agreement is entered into as of the '6ay of March, 2001, by the undersigned officers of the Little Rock School District and the Arkansas Department of Education, each of whom is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Parties. Page 7 of 8 ~vvo UtS / l!l / Ul. 1.11LI .to : \u0026lt;11 rft.A ~vvo UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION H:lliligatioo~uget\\A,bi,su AG - Oacglmi\u0026gt;cll_lS_OI \u0026gt;8\"ffll'Lwpd Page 8 of 8 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 1192219941 Wll.LIAM H. SUTTON , P. A . BYRON M . EI SEMAN, JR . . P. A . JOE O BELL . P. A . JAMES A BUTTRY , P. A . - EOERICK S . URSERY , P. A . CARE . DAVIS . JR . . P. A . M ES C . ClARK , JR. P. A . ,HO MA$ P. LEGGETT , P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSO N, P. A\". PAUi. B BEN HAM 111 , P. A . LARRY W BURKS , PA. A WYCKLIFF NISBET , JR, P. A . JAMES EDWARD HARR I S, P. A . J PHIi.LiP MALCOM . P.A JAMES M SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M SAXTON . P. A . J SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111 , P. A . DO NALD H. BACON , P. A . WILllAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A BARRY E COPLI N, P.A RICHARDO TAYLOR. P.A JOS EPH 8 HURST . J R. , P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY . PA Ci, F41STOPHER HEL LER . PA LAURA HENSI.EY SMITH . PA ROBERT S. SHAFER . P. A . WILLIAM M GRI FFIN 111 , P. A . MI CHAEi. S. MOORE , P. A . QlANE S. MACKEY . P. A . WALTER M EBEL 111, PA . KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WA00Ell. JR . PA see n J l ,),NCASTER , p A M GAYLE CORLEY . PA . ROBEAT 8 BEACH , JR . P.A J LEE 9ROWN . PA ,i.:.. ME S C BAKER . JR PA H.:.RRY A llCHT , P.A FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNE YS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 -3493 TELEPHONE 501 - 376 -2011 FAX NO. 501 -376 -2147 June 5, 2000 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock , AR 72201 Re: Magnet Schools Memorandum of Understanding Dear Tim: SCOTT H. TUCKER, P. A. GUY Al TON WADE . P. A . PRICE C. GARONER. P. A. TONIA P. JONES , P. A . DAVID 0 . WILSON, P. A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P. A . DAVID M . GRAF, P. A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P. A . JOHN C. FENDLEY , JR. , P.A. JOHANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON . P. A. GREGORY O. TAYLOR, P. A . TONY L. WILCOX , P. A . FRANC. HICKMAN , P. A . BETTY J. DEMORY. P. A . LYNDA M . JOHNSON, P. A . JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT OANIEL l. HERRINGTON IC. COLEMAN WESTBROOK , J R. ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N. RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A , KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH o, COUNSll 8 . S. CLARK WILLIAM l. TERRY WILLIAM l. PAT TO N , JR . H. T . LARZELERE . P. A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A . Wlllf(lll'S OIIIUCT NO. 150 11 370 - 1506 I have enclosed what I hope to be a final draft Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Magnet Schools. draft incorporates your proposed \"insert A.\" Please let me of a This know whether this draft meets with your client's approval. CJH/bk Encl osure ... EXHIBIT 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, Section II.E of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September 28, 1989) (hereinafter the \"Settlement Agreement\") between the Little Rock School District ( \"LRSD\") and the State of Arkansas provides that the State of Arkansas, acting primarily through the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") will continue to pay its share of the Magnet School operational costs and transportation costs for the six original magnet schools (Carver, Williams, Gibbs, Booker, Mann and Parkview); and WHEREAS, Section II .D of the Settlement Agreement limits the State's magnet funding obligation so that the State is required to provide magnet funding only to the original six magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the total seating capacity for the six original magnet schools in 1989 was 4 ,065 seats; and WHEREAS, Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement can be read as limiting the State's total magnet funding obligation to 4,065 seats or as limiting the State's magnet funding obligation on a school-by-school basis to the 1989 capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD reorganized its schools into a new configuration which includes middle schools; and WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee requested and won the District Court's approval to change the grade structure of the interdistrict magnet schools and the number of seats within five of the six schools; and WHEREAS, a consequence of LRSD' s change to the middle school configuration is that some of the six original magnet schools have a greater capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement and some of those schools have a smaller capacity than they did at the time of the 1989 Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, ADE has filed an objection with the District Court, in which it asserts that the State's magnet school funding obligations are limited, on a school-by-school basis, to its share of funding for students up to the 1989 seating capacity at each of the six original magnet schools; and WHEREAS, LRSD has filed a motion with the Court requesting , among other things, that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the State's magnet school funding obligation beyond its share of funding for a total of 4,065 students for all six original magnet schools; in the alternative, LRSD's motion requested that the Settlement Agreement be modified so as to increase the number of magnet seats funded by the State for certain individual magnet schools; and WHEREAS, the LRSD and the State wish to amicably resolve their differences concerning the effect of LRSD' s restructuring on the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools. THEREFORE, it is understood and agreed between ADE (on behalf of the State) and the LRSD as follows: LRSD shall withdraw its motion to modify the Settlement Agreement to the extent it seeks an increase, beyond a total of 4,065 seats, of the State's obligation to fund the six original magnet schools, and LRSD will not take an appeal from the District Court's order denying its motion to so increase the State's obligation . ADE shall withdraw its objection to District Court approval of a change in the number of seats proportionately funded by ADE at 5 of the 6 original magnet schools, provided that ADE will not be required to fund more than a total of 4,065 seats for all 6 original magnet schools collectively. The withdrawal of LRSD's and ADE's motions and objections is based upon their agreement that the restructuring of the LRSD's schools was intended, as part of LRSD's Revised Desegregation Plan, to enhance the quality of education in the LRSD and was not instituted solely as a means to increase the State's magnet school funding obligations. Nothing in this agreement should be construed, interpreted or asserted as a waiver of LRSD's or the ADE's ability to seek future modifications of the Settlement Agreement in regards to the seating capacities or funding of the magnet schools, or the LRSD's or ADE's right to object to proposed changes in seating capacities or funding obligations for the magnet schools, based upon factors other than the LRSD's restructuring of its schools under its Revised Desegregation Plan. Executed this __ day of June, 2000. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION By: ______________ _ Tim Gauger, Its Attorney LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ______________ _ Christopher Heller 2  AGREEMENT BETWEEN LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS RELATED TO THE TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 6th day of February, 1999 between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (\"LRCT A\"), which is represented in this case by Knight, previously agreed that the amount of the teacher pay increase for the 1998-99 school year would be related to the amount of damages recovered by LRSD from the State of Arkansas on its teacher retirement and health insurance claims; and WHEREAS, LRSD, Knight and the other Parties to the Pulaski County School Desegregation case are expected to agree to a settlement of LRSD' s teacher retirement and health insurance claims which will result in an award to LRSD of an amount less than the full amount of its claims, which agreement and result is material to the validity of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That Knight agrees that LRSD teachers shall receive a 4.25% base pay increase for the 1998-99 school year and that this Agreement supersedes and replaces the following two provisions of the original agreement between LRSD and its teachers with regard to an increase in base pay for the 1998-99 school year: First, the language concerning distribution of a remedy in excess of LRSD's actual cost for teacher retirement and health insurance (paragraph 4 of the original Agreement); and second, the 4.5% base pay provision. 2. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, EXHIBIT i 5 .f - - - - -- ' 3. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 6th day of February, 1999. Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight Intervenors AGREEMENT AMONG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOSHUA INTERVENORS AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS REGARDING TEACHER RETIREMENT AND HEAL TH INSURANCE This Agreement among Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSDD\"), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), Joshua lntervenors (\"Joshua\") and Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") regarding teacher retirement and health insurance remedy (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this th day of February, 1999. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and Knight shall be collectively referred to as the \"Parties.\" LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD shall be collectively referred to as the \"Districts.\" WHEREAS, the Parties disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; and, WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is in the best interest of all of the Parties to reach a voluntary settlement of their disagreement; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That the Districts' collective damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs shall be calculated pursuant to the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504; 2. That the Parties shall submit to the Court within five (5) days of this Agreement final numbers for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years from which the Districts damages may be calculated using the methodology proposed by ADE as set forth in Court's Exhibit 504. The State should be ordered to pay those damages within fourteen days of this Agreement; 3. The State should be ordered to reimburse the district in future years on the same ..  EXHIBIT / i 0 a: - monthly schedule as equalization funding using prior year average participation numbers and current year State minimum required contribution numbers, with adjustments to be made in January and June based on current year actual participation numbers. The State should be ordered to make payments for the 1998-99 school year, within thirty days of this Agreement, as necessary to bring it into compliance with this paragraph. 4. That the total amount of damages for the Districts as calculated according to the methodology set forth in court's Exhibit 504 shall be distributed each year as follows: 60% to LRSD, 30% to PCSSD and I 0% to NLRSD; 5. That the amounts received by each district pursuant to paragraph 3 above shall be regarded as the actual amount of each district's teacher retirement and health insurance remedy. 6. This Settlement Agreement does not resolve the question of whether the State should be required to pay the districts 100% of each district's costs for teacher retirement and health insurance or the average percentage of actual costs received by other school districts in the State. That issue is ripe for adjudication by the Court. 7. That LRSD and PCS SD have entered into a separate agreement related to the Pooling Agreement and challenges to the Act 917 funding system which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement; 8. That LRSD and Knight have entered into a separate agreement related to teacher pay which, in part, serves as consideration for this Agreement. 9. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by all Parties; and, 2 --------- I 0. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN W1TNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 8th day of February, 1999. st~eJones A)~ Attorney for NLRSD 3 Richard Roachell Attorney for Knight  SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Trus Settlement Agreement (the \"Agreement\") is made and entered into on this 911t day of February, 1999, by and between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"). WHEREAS, LRSD and PCSSD disagree as to the correct method for calculating the three Pulaski County school districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; WHEREAS, the district court's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement will likely result in a substantial payment by LRSD to PCSSD; WHEREAS, PCSSD may pursue damages from the State of Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's change from the Act 34 - funding system to the Act 917 funding system, pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. That this Agreement constitutes consideration, in part, for the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 2. That LRSD's liability to PCSSD under the district court 's interpretation of the Pooling Agreement shall be capped at $450,000.00 for the 1998-99 school year and that neither district's liability to the other will exceed $400,000.00 per year for all subsequent years that the Pooling Agreement is in effect; 3. That LRSD shall receive 30% of PCSSD's damages recovered from the State of - Arkansas for additional violations of the 1989 Settlement Agreement resulting from the State's EXHIBIT 7 - change from the Act 34 funding system to the Act 91 7 funding system pursuant to the methodology utilized in PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement as Regards MFPA filed September 8, 1998. 4. However, in no event shall PCSSD's damages paid to LRSD pursuant to Paragraph 4 above exceed that amount of LRSD's loss in teacher retirement and health insurance damages resulting from the settlement agreement entered on this same date concerning the districts' damages for the State of Arkansas ' violation of the 1989 Settlement Agreement with regard to the teacher retirement and health insurance programs; 5. That this Agreement may not be altered or modified except by written instrument executed by both Parties; and, 6. That the Parties have authorized their respective attorneys to execute this Agreement on their behalf IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement this 9th day of February, 1999. 2 I I I I I I ,, I I I I I I HU18CHll N. F\"tOAT Ct82Zlt WILLIAM N. SUTTON. P.A . JAMES 1lf . MOOIIE IYaON M . US(MAN. Jfl . ,.A. JO( O. 8(LL. r . A . JOHN C. (CHOLS. r . A . JAM[S A . IUTTPtY. ,. . A . Ffl(OUUCI . UJHUIY. , .A. OSCAa ( . DAVIS. JII .  f'.A. JAM(S C . ClAtlf; . Jfl . , . A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P. A. JOHN O[W(Y WATSON. P. A. PAUL a. l(NHAM Ill . P.A . LAJUIY W . IUfllS . P . A . A . WYCltllFF NISl(T, Jlll., r . A. JAMES EDWAlliO HAIIIIIS , P. A.. J . ,HILUP MALCOM, r .A. JAM[I M . ltMrSON, P . A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P .A. J . IHlrHUID flUIS(ll IU, P . A . OONALO H. IACON, P . A . WILLIAM THOMAS IAXT[II, r . A. IAIIIIY ( , COPLIN, P\".A. IIICHAJIO D. TAYLOII, , . A. JOS[P'H I. HUtllT, Jll ,, P.A. [UZAIETH flOll(N MUIUIAY, P .A . CHIIISTOPH(II HU. LUI , P .A. LAU\"A HENSLEY SMITH , l\" . A. ltOl(IIT S . SHAF[II, P.A. WILi.i.AM M . GJUFFfN Ill. , . A . MICHA(l S . MOOft(, ,. . A. DIAN( S . MA.Cl[Y , , . A . WALT(ft M . (au Ill , .. . ... . l(VIN 4 . CIIASS , P' . A. WtlllAM A . WADO(Ll, Jft . , r .A . John W. Walker FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLA!tK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCIC, ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 601 - 3782011 FAX NO. 601-378-2147 June 10, 1998 VIA FAX and HAND DELIVERY JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Attorney's Fee Settlement Dear John: SCOfT J . LANCASH  . \" \"  M . OAYl( COIIIUY. r .A oauu I . l(ACH. Jlt . . ,  . J . U( ... OWN , f' . A. JAM(S C . 1141(11. J . P' . A HARRY A . UGHT . , .A . SCOTT N. lUCC(III . r . A . .JOHN ClA'flON \"ANDOll'\" P'  CUT Al TON WAO(. P .   f'l1UC( C . CA110Nl . ,.  TONIA,. JON(S. ,. A . DAVID 0. WUSON. P . A . J(FFlll('f H . MOOU. r  0AYID M . GIIAJ. P . A . CAllllA GUNN(lS S,-AINHOUfl. ,. A .IOHH C. IF(NOl(T . J . . PA . II. CMllll  TOl\"N(III LAWSON Cll(GO\"'f 0. fA'flO\" TONY L. WILCOX FIIAN C. NIClMAN l(TT'f J . 0(W0fl'f  .... A .. A J . ...... o l 'fNOA W. JONNSON JAM($ W . SMITH CllFFOO W . l'lUNl( ff OAHtll l. M(flllllNC:fON ALLISON .J . COIUtW(LL 1000  cu (LUN lot . OW(NS H(l(N( N . ATOUI .JASON I . N(NDA(N SUSANN. CHILDUIS IIIIUC[ a . TIOWUl o, covu WllLIAM J . SMITH a . S . CLAIU WILLIAM L. HT WILLIAM l. ,-AT TON. J H . 1' . lAllll[UR( . , . A . 16011 370 I 601 I will have delivered to you today a check from the Little Rock School District in the amount of $35,000.00 for attorney's fees in the school desegregation case. We have now paid you $100,000.00 based upon our expectation that we will be able to reach a complete agreement concerning past and future fees and costs in the desegregation case. In accordance with our telephone conversation today, we now have such an agreement subject to the approval of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. I expect the Board of Directors to approve our agreement at its June meeting. LRSD will make the following payments 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. U or 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 1,1,a---, 1998. - The payments described in this letter will constitute full anc 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. Please sign this letter l:iCI ::z: 00 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; Ill 1 It I I I I I I ,I I I I I - It I I John w. Walker June 10, 1998 Page 2 to indicate your acceptance of these terms and your willingness to sign a comprehensive settlement agreement containing these terms. Thank you for your cooperation. I will keep you advised of the progress toward approval of this agreement by the LRSD Board of Directors. The Joshua Intervenors agree to the settlement terms set forth in this letter. rney A PROF\"\":.SSIO~Al. CORPORATI0:-1 :\\TTOR..'-'EYS\"AT L~W 120J '\\J:.'CRTI;EN aANlC Bl,'U..OL'-:G LITi1..E Rea:. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 314-7100 -:-a.E:c::rl' CX'IJ n~l\u0026amp;ll :!ay 31, 1989 ~e: ~ittle ~eek School Dist=ict vs. Pulaski C~unty S?ecial School District No. 1, et al, NO. LR-C-82-866 John W. Walker, Escr. Christopher Heller; Esq. Ste?hen W. Jones, Esq. M. Sa~uel Jones, Esq. ~ic~ard W. Roachell, Esq. Dear Counsel: In_ accorc.ance wi t:1 III.A. o:f the ?ulas}~i County Deseq:::-ega tion Settlenent .::..greement c-f .Ma::::-ch, l 9 8 9, we are enclosing an Arkansas DeDartment of Education ?12.n fer ~c~i toring i!uplementation of compensc.to~y educ2. t.ic:1 ~n t.he ~tree school c.istricts. The settleme!\"lt 2gree;:1e!lt does not !)rov:i.Ce :\"c::- :::..lir:c; . or -:ve\" submission of ~his document ~o the Cou::::-t a~ -;:::.:s time. :-:cwever, we are senc.ing copies to both Judge ;,oocs and Xr. ~cC~tcheon so that thev mav be aware that this re~ui=enent of t~e settlement acree~e~t has been met. We antici?ate that the enclosed olan ma'v be .nodified afte:::- :::-eceivinc .cur com.':lents 2.nc after-we learn more about the monitoring r~le ~hat will be untertaken by Eugene Reville. :rW.V:-im :Snclosure cc: The Honorable Hen=y ~ccts Sincerely yours, ALLEN !..A\\: FIF.N ~iJw_(JJJ__ H. William ,AJ,,len , ', The Honorable Aubrey V. Mccutcheon, Jr. ~c~: Dr. Ru~~ Ste~le Sam Sratton, ~sa . Sharon St=ee~~, -~3~. Esa. .; 1 ~ lC EXHIBIT l l  One of the Att One for NLRSD WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS By ~~ -- M. Samuel Jones One of the Attorneys _for PCSSD ROACHELL By tJJ -=p-a--'-u-::1:--:~'-=-::-~-~------ 0ne of Knight the Attorneys for the Intervenors e - i\\RlQ.NS;l.S DEPJ..R.TMDIT OF EDUO..TIOH PULASKI COUNT'! DESZGREGATION MONITORING The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) provides for the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of ~ducation (ADE), to monitor the irople_~entation of compensatory education programs by t:he school districts in Pulaski Co~nty. The ADE defines comoensatocy educatiQ~_p.J:.agm~ as those o~qg;:_ams wnich are directed at .La,provina the ac2de:nj c r:e,..-=or:;;12:nce -0f-.bl2.ck s..t:udents whose acaaern.ic achievement bas been adversely affected  discriminatorv practices w  D...J:h.e school. Tb.e___state comoensato effects of the programs shouia:'oe it~es in eaucationa Although the Agreement identifies compensatory education as the ~rimary area 'for monitoring, the state's monitoring responsibility is necessarily broader in order to ensure an eauitable education for all students and demonstrate fiscal a~countability to the tax payers of Arkansas. 1:-lonitoring responsibilities for ~esegregation effectiveness by necessity must permeate all elemen~s of schooling to ensure equal opportunities through special state funded remedial progr~s- Therefore, it shall ~e the goal of the ~.DE to ?rovide extensive monitoring and eval\\!acion oi the Agreement. The primary focus of the orocess shall be a continuous assessment 0 the remedial effectiveness of ~rcgr~~s supported partially or f~lly by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School Districc vs. ?ulaski Countv Soeci2.l School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and serv~ces receiving special funding include: 1. ~pe~satory ~cucatio::i)) 2. Magnet Schools ~ 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers The Agreement commits ~he state to: l. Direct funui~g to the districts (~ithin the limits provided in ~he Agreement) 2. Principles o~ desegregation a. Remediation of racial academic achievement dispari~ies l ------ ------------------~ b. d. Standacdi:ed test yalidation R~~i~l bala~~e ir. ~pecial programs Minority !'ec:::-u.it:nenc a.nci employ;;ie!1t 3. Site selection c=lceria for school constructio~ or ~xpansion 4. Staff dcvelopme~c release days fer ~he t.~ree districts through _l990-l991 5. -r-... ~ni:-.y million dollars loan to Litt.le ~cc~: School Districc .:.o d~velo? programs for remediacing .a~~ievement disparities and or ~t~er programs and initiacives which facilitate desegregat.ion 6. Selection oi an a~:::-eed standardized test t.o satisfy the loan forgiveness of t.~e ~grcement ..,. .. 3. The ADE shall ~r~vicc 4egular w~it.t.~n ~cn~t.ori~g reporcs t~ t.hc ~art.ies anc tje court. Monitoring by t~e st.ac?. shall be i.idependenc of t.hat of the other parties. As a .last resor~, P.DE may petition the cou~t for modifications or changes in such programs ~eing implemenr.ed ~y ~he districts lbut ~ot fvr ~ r?.6uction in the agr~ed level of stata funding). 4. Any recommc:nca.:ic~s mci.,-:e  oy l\u0026gt;.DE shall :1oc ::or.n t.he basis of ~ny ~ccitior.~l f~nc.ing responsi~il:-::i2s 0f .:h~ _state. Jl.lthongh, i:'!.e .!..DC: rnoni::.;):!\":.:,g shall be inc..~?e?;dc:1c :::)= .::iat of t':le other par~ies, the dis~=:.c~s are advised to cs.:ablish an internal monitoring pla=-i. ~he ;:nr;-ose sha.ll be to det.e=mine anc. document:. that: \\. Th~ desegrega.:ion plan ~as, or is ce~~; implemented on a timely b.;sis, 2. Inequities do no.: exisc and/or do n~r recur; and 3. J\u0026gt;.11 ~tuden.:s a-:e afforc.ed an equi-::a::,le educa-=.ion. 2 L.. !.;CN 1 TOiUHG ~he monitoring process shall be conducted to ensure effectiveness of court order remedies and will include site visitaticns, review ~ plans, review of statistical and administrative data as we11  as percep~ual responses from school personnel, patrons and students. Further, monito_ring ' isits should provide evidence that the school $lte is representative of the pl~ralistic nature of the Air,erican Society. Monitoring tcc:.ms shall be selected by the Director, Arkansas Department 0 Education (]illE), General Division. Tbe teams shall include ;h.DE personnel and may include others as designa-c.ed by the Director. Monitoring visits shall be contl~cted acco~a~ng to a scnedule ~stablishcd by -che i\\DE. The mor1i taring process shall include anno11nced and unannounced visits. Monitors sholl record ~vents and conditions during sit~ visits. Monitors shall observe and report f ind.ings only.  E:ach district shall include in the six-year plan and unxwal school improvement: plans appropriate objectives to c1chieve .;,.:impliance with each court orde:r rela.ted to the Agrcem\u0026lt;::nt.. The ADshall monitor the  si:;;:-vec:1.r olans and :i.nnua.i school improvement pLrns t0 de:t~r~ine progress towa!:d cchieving educational equi tY. District plans should prov-ide evid.ence of ~ompliacce ~ith court aiders and a process to ascertain progress. 'The AD'E shall identify relevant daca necessary to formulc::.te conclusions and recommendations. ~ata should provide: 1. Evidence that policies, pro~edures, rules and requlaticns are developed and implemented to facilitate de$egrega,:ion. 2. Evidence that plans r~lated to reducing achieve~ent disparity between black and non-black students are progressively successful. 3. Evidence ~hat student assignments to schools, clc::.sses and prc:\u0026gt;grams at each organi:::at:ional level are made without bias. 4. Evidence that staff development days authorized as a result of the ~greement are used to facilitate the desegregation process . . 5. Evidenc~ that travel time to and =~cm schools is ~ot disproportionate among black and non-black students and the percentage of black scudents transportea =or desegregation is not significantly greater than the pe.~entage of non-black students transported for desegreg~tion. 6. Evidence that guidance and counseling is designed to meet the ne-=ds of a diverse student pop11lation . 7. Evidence of intern~l procedures for ensuring thr-t materials for appraising or counseling s~udents are non-discriminatoty. 8. Evidenc~ that cur~icular content ~na'instructio~al strategies arc utilized to meet: the diverse ne2ds of the student population serv~a. 9. Evidence that personnel is recruited, employed and :i~signed in a 1nanner to meet ~he goals of a desegregating school district. 10. Evidence that nroce~u~es related to cxtracurricula and ;::o,:urricula 3.ccivit.ies are develooed and imolemented t.o identify and eli~inate =onditions.that resuit ir. participation th~t is dispr.oportionate to the studen~ population. 11. Evidence of aiverse representation on appointed dist.r.i.ct\\.Jic.e nnd school-based committees. 12. Evidence of efforts to .ensure that oaicnt attendance at :.;chool function:~ 1::; not ,11.::proporti~nate t\".o the student population.  l). EJiden,::e of- succ~s:; relate:! to Hajority to Minor:..;:y ~-~a.tts!ars . ;_ 11. Evidence that magnet: schools are an eifective interdis~rict remed.t fo~ racial balance. The collection of data shall include ~t le~st the following: A. Enrol~nent/Attendance 1. Enrollm~nt by race, gender, school, grade, transported, nontransported and instructional prog 1:a.ms. 2. Enrollment by race, gender, grade, .:ransported, nontransporced and instructional program fo~ each magnet scnool. ) . Numbe . .r. of non promotes by race, gender, grace, sch.ool, ::eacher, transported. and. n0nt.ranspor~ed.. B. Test Data Arr:ans;:..s Ninirr.um Performance Tesc results by race, gender, grade, school and :;ocioeconomic status {SES). N:umber of eighth graders failing to axcain 1nast.ery after the first, second and third ad.ministration of test. by race, gend~r, SES and school. Nwnbe= 0 eighth graders th2. t: are non promotes f _or failir.g ;:o at.tain mastery aft.er thi:::-d adrni:1istration of test ~y race, gender, SES and schoql. 14. Metr0politan ~chievement Test - 6th Editiun or other . national normed tests ~s may be adopted by the ADE. Results should be given by race , gender~ grade, school, s~s and teacher. ~S .. ~umber of llth and 12th graders b~ race, gender, ~chool ~na guidance counselor who t~ke the PSAT, S~T or ACT. C:. St:aft , 1. Number of Full TimP- Equivalent lF.T.E.) classroom t1:acl1ers by race, gender, school, years of experien~e. 2. Number of ?.T.E. school-based aaminiscrators by job category, r2.ce, gender1 school, ye2.rs oi experience. 3. Nun\\b~r of F.T.E. counselors by race, g~nder, school, years ct CX?erience.  5 - -'\\ . 5_ 6 . 7 . 8. Numher of F.T.E. kindergarten teachers by race, gender, school, years of experience. Number of F.T.E- librarians oy race, gender, school, years of experience. Numb~r of F.T.E. department heads by race , . gender, school, yea.rs of experience. Nt1mber of F.T.E. secretaries by race, gender, school, years of experience_ N'..llnber of =.T . E. cent~al offic~ positions by job category, race, gender, school, years of experience. D- Policy and Program Infonnation 1. Administrative chart indicates titles, names, responsibilities and reporting responsibilities_ 2. Policies and regulations related to student entrance and exit criteria for course offerings ~nd special state funded programs including: ::'I.. Ma.gnet Schools h. Compensatory Education c. Majority to Minority Transfers d. Transportation 0  - ~   M - - -  3. Student assignment policies, rules ~nd regulations. 4. District policies, rules, regulations and written administrative directives governing: a. Class Assignment b. Testing c. Guidance and Counseling d. Extracurricular Activities e. Student Rights and Responsibilities f. Libr~~Y Usage g_ Student Records S.  Copies of current negotiated agreements with all e~ployee groups. E. Budget Information Quarterly (or monthly, if available) financial reports including: 1. Cost of operating all elementary programs, junior high school programs, and high school programs by .funding source (local/regular state/federal and special state desegregation funding). 6 .. 2. Transportat:i on cost: and funding sour,ce. 3. All legal fees reported by type of services. 4. Compensatory ~ducacion Program cost 5. Magnet school cost: F. Student Discipline 1. ..liW.IlP_er of discipl~D~ .. r .ef err.als _ by __ !,\u0026gt;chool and teacher repbri~d by ra~i.- gender, grade, subject and  teachers' ye:;.rs cf experience; .. 2. Student suspensions, exclusions and expulsions according to type of infractions, length of punishment by race, gender, school and teacher. G. Perceptional Data Results of survey to ascertain perception toward school quality, ~ s_~ces, district ... c:3,I).Q. _ building ~rship, speclal s~ate funded programs and educational equity summarizeci.b~ace, gender, attendance zone, school and grade. ii. Majority to Minority Transfer Number and percentage of students by gender, race, school and grade lev~l, by sending and receiving district. /' ~alysis of data _shall be __ conduct.ed by appropriate ADE personnel and other persons as designated. by the ADE director, Additional data may be required of the c.istricts, a$ deemed necessary by the ADE for the monitoring repor-.s. A schedule . for submitting the data shall be established by the Jl..DE - Si!1ce the moni torir1g is ~assi ,:e anci. e~~ompassir:.g, the A.DC: shall establishmonitoring priorities as. follows: 1. Programs and se~vices supported by special state. desegregation funding incluqing. compensatory educa~ion, magnet schools, majcri ty to minority transfers and related.transpor-.ation. 2. Low achieving schools. 3. Schools with new principals. 4. Any situation icient~fied as unusual. 5. Expanded monitoring as resources permit. 7 -. / ;t,onitoring activities shall be coordinated by the ADE Equity Assistanc~ Center. The site visitation will be conducted by a Learn of no less than two members and no more than five members. At least one team member will be an education professional from the }I.DE. The Equity Assistance Center may conduct random monitoring to ensure the quality of monitoring procedures. Since data analysis is essential to the monitoring process, the state requests the Court to instruct the three districts to provide the ADE all data necessary to implement the monitoring actiJi ties. P.EPORTING The ADE shall provide a written report to the parties and the . Court on a semiannual schedule initially. These initial reports will be on February 1 (or nearest workday) and July 15 (or - nearest workday) of each year or as directed by the Court. The Equity Assistance Center shall be responsible for the written monitoring reports. The written report shall contain a description of the progress of the desegregation process in Pulaski County. Programs end services receiving special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District vs. P11laski Countv Special School Dis~rict 1 et al . , No. LR-C-82-866 shall receive reporting priority. The reports will contain both financi2.l and program information. * The _ADE Desegregation \u0026gt;.ssistance Te~n s~all provide ~ech~i~al . assistance atid suzoort as necessary to implement monitoring ana ..,reporting respor_isibili ties. Current team members are: Administration Student Services Emma Bass Brenda l1a.tthews Sterling Ingram ~1argie Po.vell Robert Shaver Sue Swenson Sue McKenzie Gifted/Talented Martha Bass Federal Programs Clearence Lovell Blizabeth Gaston Incentive Schools Carolyn Elliott Glenda Peyton Marie Parker Early Childhood TBA curriculum Lynda White Horace Snith Janita Hoskyn 3 Special Education Diane Sydoriak Benny Abraham Staff Develoomcnt c-aylc T2al Jackie Dec.man .:.taff 1'.t.tornev Sharon Streett Vocational Education Jean i-lcEnt:.ire - - --- - -- Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD regarding hiring teachers under contact with another district. The districts have agreed not to hire teachers under contract with another district from one month before the start of a school year through the end of the school year unless the position at the hiring district is considered a promotion. EXHIBIT /j Summary of unwritten agreement between the LRSD and the LRCT A regarding the use of intern teachers to fill vacancies. The LRSD and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association have agreed that a teaching position that becomes vacant after the first student-contact day will be filled with an intern teacher whose teaching contract will not be renewed at the end of the school year. At that time, the position will be listed as vacant and filled consistent with District policy and the PN Agreement. The intern teacher may apply for the position, but he or she is not entitled to any preference in hiring. -.. EXHIBIT 1 i IC \\5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER DATED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its response, states: RECEIVED APR . -2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. It has reviewed the proposed submission of the LRSD and believes the LRSD has adequately described those items that are responsive to the Court's March1, 2002, Order. 2. Item 3 of the LRSD response is a copy of its agreement with the State. The PCSSD wishes to note that the only parties to this agreement are the State and LRSD. PCSSD was not involved in the negotiation of this agreement, is not a party to it and does not believe the agreement has any legal effect upon the PCSSD. Further, the PCSSD does not believe that said agreement could operate to affect or diminish or curtail in any manner those sums and payments which the State is obligated to pay to or on behalf of the PCSSD for the desegregation and other financial programs described within it. 327291-v1 3. Finally, a discrete section of the May 1988 \"Joshua Agreement\" retains vitality. It addresses student balance goals in the PCSSD and is referred to in each of the ODM monitoring reports concerning racial balance. The operative language is quoted by the Court of Appeals as follows: \"However, at a minimum, at the end of the implementation period, no PCSSD school shall have a black enrollment which exceeds the then prevailing black ratio, by organizational level, in the Little Rock School District.\" See Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1378, 1379 (8th Cir. 1990). 327291-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 B -~..-=--:--f-..;..:_-:-:-:---:::-::~-:-:--+----ci a I 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 1, 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 QOM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 327291-v1 3 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., I ntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR .- 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NLRSD'S NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 In its Order of March 1, 2002, the Court directed the parties to identify and submit copies of all its agreements with any other party to the case. The Little Rock School District has shared its list of agreements as contained in the LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as required by Order filed March 1, 2002, with the NLRSD. The NLRSD agrees that the agreements listed by the LRSD are in fact agreements among some or all of the parties. The NLRSD is not aware of any additional agreements. Therefore, the NLRSD adopts the Notice of Filing Agreements as its own. However, the NLRSD notes that it was not a party to Item #3, Agreement between the LRSD and the State dated March 19, 2001 re: Unitary Status, Sale of Bond and $20 million loan. Therefore, while the NLRSD agrees that this Agreement exists, it reserves its right to object to the legitimacy and/or scope of that Agreement. Respectfully submitted, Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P. A. 425 W. Capitol 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Si:WA)~ Stephen W. Jqnes (No. 78-083) I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons via U. S. Mail on this 1st day of April, 2002. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue 2000 Bank of America Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell Law Firm P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 _......, ~\u0026lt;GW~ ephen W. Jones // RECEIVED APR - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING p= ;; ~ '''-=\"' I\"\"'' 1;= J l1 k= 4 1 a ~--=bl-.II U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARMl'1SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl~SAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. :rv.tRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. _l,l\\MES W. McCORMACK CL:: :-;: .r- ' -,' --------~ PLAINTIB'F c.: - -~ DEFENDANTS JNTER VENO RS JNTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1. 2002 On March 1, 2002, the Court required the parties to identify any agreements, formal or informal, that existed between the parties. Joshua responds as follows: 1. Joshua Intervenors would be involved in monitoring activities involving plan implementation regarding the three districts. The Districts agreed to cooperate and otherwise facilitate Joshua monitoring. 2. Joshua was to be involved in Little Rock and Pulaski County with the selection of principals for certain schools; devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and were to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to either of the school boards for final action. 3. The parties were to cooperate in identifying programs, policies, and procedures which actually either worked or did not work to achieve expected goals of the settlement agreements and, where necessary, to either build upon such programs or to discard them and replace them with programs which had greater probability of success. 4. The districts were to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The State Department of Education, though relieved as a party, was expected to comply with the requirements of the Allen letter. The State Department was also expected not to forgive the Little Rock School District loan of 20 million dollars without the remediation goals set forth in the Consent Decree having been achieved. 6. There was a scholarship commitment imposed upon Little Rock schools, formerly - identified as Incentive Schools, which guaranteed every student of those schools who graduated from a Little Rock high school with a \"C\" average college tuition. 7. The State Department ofEducation and the parties were required to identify legislation and other state actions which had discriminatory impact upon black students. The State of Arkansas agreed to discontinue and to prevent continuation of those practices. 8. The agreement entered into between the Pulaski County School District and the Joshua Intervenors known as the Joshua Agreement. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors had hoped to continue their discussions with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in seeking to identify other possible agreements but due to the absence of ODM Moniror, :Wlrs. Ann S. Marshall, we are unable to have that input before the filing deadline. Joshua, therefore, requests leave of court to supplement the foregoing understandings after Mrs. Marshall returns to her office. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) ( CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing filing h counsel of record via United States mail on this 1st day of Ap  , 20 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT us FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN W,~~~1, c;_TT COURT \" ARl\u0026lt;~ NSAS WESTERN DMSION APR 3 Z002 , ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * JAMES Vi   fi , v. /Vi c 1...~li ACK, CLERK Qv , _ ,~ DEP.CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 WRW RECEIVED APR -5 2002 OfACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER The Joshua Intervenors' unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status is GRANTED. Responses to the LRSD motion are due on or bef;:;ursday, April 18, 2002. DATED thid _ _ day of April, 2002. TATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 0~ 11;~ A~~/0 79(a) FRCP 589 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 v1 (),At:u l 1t i. f/4_ RECEIVED APR 1 7 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AGREEMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to the Joshua Intervenors' Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002 states: 1. The LRSD admits that it contemplated that Joshua would monitoring the LRSD's implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). The LRSD also admits that it agreed to \"cooperate or otherwise facilitate\" Joshua monitoring to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 8.2 and 8.3 and with the agreement between the LRSD and Joshua dated June 10, 1998 regarding past and future attorneys' fees for monitoring, attached as Exhibit 8 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 1 of Joshua's April 1, 2002 filing. 2. The LRSD denies that it agreed that Joshua was to be involved in the selection of principals for certain schools; the devisation of programs, policies and procedures where changes in school operations were contemplated; and was to be informed of administrative plans which had desegregation implications before those plans were presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval. 3. The LRSD admits that it agreed to \"cooperate\" with Joshua in identifying programs, policies and procedures which worked or did not work to the extent consistent with Revised Plan 2.7.1, 8.2 and 8.3. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 3 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 4. The LRSD denies that it agreed to provide data and other information when requested by Joshua in the same manner that such data was to be prepared to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring when requested by that body. 5. The LRSD admits that the \"Allen letter\" represents an agreement among all the parties to this case. See Exhibit 11 to LRSD's Notice of Filing Agreements as Required by Order Filed March 1, 2002. The LRSD denies that there was an agreement not to forgive the $20 million loan to the LRSD from the State pursuant to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. To the contrary, it was not contemplated at the time the 1989 Settlement Agreement was negotiated that the LRSD would ever have to repay the $20 million loan from the State. 6. The LRSD admits that it agreed to provide scholarships to the extent consistent with-Revised Plan 5.8. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 6 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 7. The LRSD admits that the 1989 Settlement Agreement required the State to \"research and list\" laws that impede desegregation and obligated other parties to assist the State 2 in identifying existing or proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation. See 1989 Settlement Agreement,  IILD. Otherwise, the LRSD denies an agreement as alleged in Paragraph 7 ofJoshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 8. The LRSD takes no position with regard to the \"Joshua Agreement\" identified in Paragraph 8 of Joshua's April 1, 2002, filing. 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 BY:------,4-'li\"L,C--l_.__;_i~~~~~':L...:......- 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on April 17, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 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 (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Offi~e of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 4 9NIHOllNOW NOllY93H93S3a ~o 3~1:1:fO ZOOZ 6 1 ~d\\f RECEIVED APR 1 9 2002 OFACEOF FILED U.S. DISTRICT GOURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS . APR 1 8 2002  a3Al303t:t DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~ ' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. :tvIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Come the Joshua Interveno~, by and through undersigned counsel, John W. Walker; -P.A., and respectfully move the court for an extension of time for an additional thirty days in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for An Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Joshua respectfully states: 1. In accordance with the Court's orders ofJanuary 25, 2002 and February 12, 2002, Joshua and the LRSD have engaged in settlement discussions regarding LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status. The parties agree that additional time is needed to continue these discussions. 2. Counsel for the Little Rock School District, Mr. Chris Heller, has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate to the Court that the Plaintiff, LRSD, does not object to the requested extension. 3. Neither party will be prejudiced by the court granting the requested extension. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court enter an order extending the time which to respond up and including May 20, 2002. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) \\! , '' l ', , ~, By~d-    / . (, JJo n W. Walk.e r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this 1 t 11 day of April ,, 002.  Jk,_\u0026lt;j( i V\"' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED APR 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' NOTICE OF FILING AS REQUIRED BY ORDER FILED MARCH 1, 2002 The PCSSD for its Response to those paragraphs of Joshua's filing which relate to it state: 1. Admits that it knew that Joshua would seek to engage in monitoring activities, but denies that Joshua has engaged in appropriate monitoring activities. 2. Denies that Joshua was to be involved with the selection of principals, denies that Joshua was to be involved in administrative plans, but acknowledges that Joshua has a role to play as respecting programs, policies and procedures as set forth in Plan 2000. 3. Admits that a role for Joshua is set forth in Plan 2000 regarding programs, policies and procedures regarding educational achievement. 4. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 as phrased, but acknowledges that Joshua is enterprising in its efforts to obtain information from the PCSSD. 5. 333093-v1 Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7. 6. Admits that a portion of the Joshua Agreement retains vitality as respects student assignment in the PCSSD. 7. Denies the remaining allegations contained in Joshua's submission. 333093-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 --- -- c--::J:-  ~ .,,.. r,, By J) I --\u0026lt; / ;  \\'- ) '-----' M. Samuel Jones Ill (76,,060) Attorneys for Pulaski-e\"ounty Special School Distr-ict ......._ ___ -- -.. - 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April 25, 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 333093-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette 0. Honorable 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 M. Samuel Jones Ill (___) J . 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC-EIVED APR 3 O 2002 OFACE OF 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 April, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 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 April 30, 2002 ~tttizit~~~;tA~~wltgt~~S'.~~g1iiil~il.~if~r~1,~1111,~,~-ftdl~-t~'aHhe 8. 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.    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":37,"next_page":38,"prev_page":36,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":432,"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}}]}}