{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1726","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-15/2001-08-31"],"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","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Parents' and teachers' associations","School management and organization","School discipline","School administrators","School employees","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1726"],"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":["83 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, plaintiff's motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for protective order and for emergency hearing; District Court, order; District Court, consolidated response to motion for preliminary injunction and corrected motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001; District Court, plaintiff's motion for comtempt; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, order; District Court, supplement to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSDD) Baker recruitment plan; District Court, plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, response to Joshua's motion for extension of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, motion for enlargement of time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 PLAINTIFF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ,.. .. ._!!\\THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTNE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING 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 Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25-19-110. 2. On August 13, 2001, Joshua submitted the FOIA request attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Items one and two of the request seek all correspondence and e-mail between each LRSD principal and other District personnel for over three years. LRSD seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor the request and/or .. granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request and requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery is intended to annoy, oppress and unduly burden LRSD. First, the request is over broad. Joshua made no effort to limit its request to the issues currently before this Court. Second, the request is unreasonably cumulative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i). This request is one in a long-line ofFOIA requests by Joshua. In response to a prior request, LRSD provided Joshua access to all of the e-mails of each associate superintendent. These would have included any e-mails with principals. Finally, the burden and expense of complying with Joshua's request outweighs any likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. i6(b )(2)(iii). The documents sought by Joshua may contain personal information about students. The FOIA requires LRSD to redact this information. See 2001 Ark. Acts 1653. It will take a substantial amount oftime and resources to review over three years worth of correspondence and e-mails and make the necessary redactions. Principals need to be preparing for the start of school on August 20, 2001. It will be impossible for them to comply with Joshua's FOIA request and also adequately prepare for the start of school. 4. LRSD has attempted to confer with Joshua, but Joshua refused to narrow the ~  -.r-eqnest or allow LRSD the time needed to respond. 5. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. As discussed therein, this Court has discretion to enjoin Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a protective order requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor its August 13, 2001, FOIA request and/or granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request; for an order requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of 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 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37. 1 B: John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   I certify ~ copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on August~ 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol . Little Rock, AR 72201 ~  -Mr:steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 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 72222-73 88 - Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ John C. Fendley, Jr. 3 08/ 13/2001 15:59 501-324-2213 SQ-IDOL SERVICES PAGE 03   - JOHll W. W.Al.XU SH.AWN OJIILl)S JoHN W. WALJaR, P.A. moJQmArL4w l72S~AT Lrrn-l Rocm, A8JwGAs 722()6 TILZ:fflon (SOl) \u00267+8758 FAX (!501) 874-4l87 August 13, 2001 r  Dur Principal: -- Please provide punu~t to the Arkansas Freedom oflnfurmation A.a:  i. I 1) ali errcspond~ that yo-1.1 have .na~ in \\\\'if.ti other Little Rock S~l ~ strict P6onn.l fot 0\\4 ~riC)d baitfflll'la Math l. 1~8 ano en(!in~ J,.m\" 30, 2\u003cj(l1 ; , t I fol' th pen~ bta,nnin; M~c:h 1, 1998 .na .adina Jw,o )0, :2001; f 2) Qll ._~, that yo~ ha.Vt .r,;agci in wiih ocbr Li\"W llock Sclaool Di~J- '10,mel. 3) copies of all plAni that your \u0026chool dC!Veloped reaarding the following r.~bj i: a) discipline ;- b) gradea e) transportation d) flXtneurricular acti\"vjtie., j e) remediation of achievemanl activities ;: 1 f) participation in gifted and talented~ honors and advanced placc:inent i g} participation in spoc:ial education : , .  . I 4) ail wrltina, which rdlect the followin\u0026: . ! ) evaluario,u of pro,rama. policie, and proccdur11 that you imp .. ~ ! duriA\u0026 each of the last tbr\" yoan ,. b) appraiaaJa ofpro,rama, policies and.procedures that you impl~t. duri.q *b  of the last three years = .. c) assessments of pr~. policies ap4.:p;OGedures that you im.r,jem. j d during each oftbe last three years; and   . ::_ . i .  5) al.I rcporta resardina the success or fiilure : ~ propm. policy aodf ir  . ire that you nave under1aken in your ;school during eaeh of the past three rear whij e you h\u0026ve rec;ommsodod changes (regarding the proaram. Policy or prooedllf to !bl admi.Disu1tion io writin1, ' : .. I ~ l  ~ PLAINTIFF'S t axrmn 08/13/2001 15:59 501-324-221:3 SCHOOL SERVICES rt !i r-   y 011 may gpw witJl M~. ~Pfl!10!f HI my offica f'lRA!'dmJ tt\\A 4AM W tiftt  review and inspect the requested information. JWW:j\u0026 I I I I ! ; . j ' PAGE 04 11/17/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS  NO. 1.54 Hal6~/l:l1Qb ALio-:30-84 TUE 15:45 US DISTRICT CLERK FAX NO, 15019724812 P. 02 IN THB tiam A'l'BS DISTRICT cou.:'dr.JJrlC~~ DSTDN STRICT 01 AJlKAN .RNDlffllCf AAIWIIU JONISBOI.O DIVISION AUG 3 O 1994 ~~ DR  .JOHN KANGIDI, PLAIMTI1? ARKANSAS ITA'l'B UNlVIRSITY, B'l' AL, , DIJ'DDANTS MIM9BAttRPI MP 9BPIB In this action bro~9ht puruant to ,3 u.s.c. I 1913, th Defendant have aouqht a protactivo order (docket entry 3) which would _prohibit discovery ot attorney-clian~ communicationa batvean the Defendant and their lavyera and would protect attorney worlc product from dJ.acloure. Th latter would include lawyer to lawyer co1111unioat1ona aad tor th pupoae of preparin9 and detendinq the 1ntant l1t19ation. Plaintiff taadtaetly re1ita th entry ot ucb a protect! va order, pointing to th Arkanaa Freedom ot Intonation Aot, Ark. Code Ann. S as-19-101 at sag. (Supp. 1993), th Defendant' tatu aa ~c of  public 1ftat1tution, and the tact that th Detanclanta have baan auecl in their official aa well  individual capaoitiaa, and a body of Arkansas c law addra11inq the POIA and the aubjeot ot Defendant' propoaed order. 1 = PLAINTIFF'S l 9i'Bl1 t l/l?/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS I N0.134 P003/006 AUG-30-94 TUE 15:46 us TSTRJCT CLERK I FAX NO, 15019724612 P.03 e Initially, it auat be detarttlna4 which rul of law the court ahould apply. Thi caae, brol.!4ht in Federal Ditriot Co~ by a former State univer itr ~reaident over his treatment by the Board of Truateea ot ,.id intitution, i  tor rdr ot righta protected ~Y the law and eontitution ot th united stat In a auit ~roupt in federal court purauant to 42 u.s.c. I 1913, federal law control CZUNtion ,,--- ot priv1le9e. 1SglHn1 Ye Powtll, 773 ,.2c1 191, 1.1, (8th C:iJ:. 1911), cart. denied, 475 u.s. 1119 (1ta6); Youn!Jblood y. Qataa. 112 7.R.D. 342 (C.D. c.1. 1915). 'l'hia 1  true even where a pendnt or auppl ... ntal jurisdiction claim 11 joined with a federal claia. BIDIID Ye Alln IMPEial Hpapi\\al. 141 P.R..D. 115 (S.D. Iowa 1193). Work product protection - cautiona are detanined by looking to federal law, even in d1vrity ca Attbert; v, Cbis1aA i u,w, Tranap, Ce,, 121 P.R.D. 569 (D.s.o. 1989); Harpar Ye Auto oVDVI +DI, Co,, 138 r.R.D. ,ss (S.D. Ind. 1991), Tli attorney-oUent privilaqa i an indipnble tool of juatioa, and i 919011nded in th tederal 00111110n law. It ori9in8 ;o baclc_well before .th 1700' 8t4ient aurnr, Inc. Y, yarican A A11eei1tisn, 320 r.ad 314 (1th cir. 11,l). '?he benefit ot the privila,e, l:)otb to t.ha aainiat.rat1on o.t juatic and to the attorner.;client relationahip, are o \u0026oW\\da-nt a to need no recitation hare. It 1 tharatora held that tha aotion 1 GRAN'l'ID  ~ tho 001111\\Ulioationa between attorney and gliant that oomo under tho attornerclient  a l ,l / lt::35 14:~ Wl-\u003c:lrl, LlNu:x.T, ll. Jt::NN!~ fG-30-94 TUE 15:48  US DISTRICT CLERK . FAX J\"'IU ,, .L~ 15019724612 wv11e9e, See ,a\u002611,.-i.._..-._..,_,_....,.~.....,.,...._..._......_,.......,'-llilll,-\" r.~.D. ,st (D,C, Ill, 1975), Th motion 1 aleo GaAMTID  to into;-ation, letter, o~anda, and th lika .ganez-ated  lt.or~Y work product. HiglQaln y. Taylor, l2t U,S, 495, '7 +ct. 385 (1147) I bG E1atn1u1ar Tit;l c;e, v, 2111.. 101cb ~otxi 132 P,R.D. 301 (S,D. Pl\u0026, 1990), Th real ditticulty, ot course, co in determining whether a 9iven item tall within or without on ot th ~vo protected ~te9or1 Counl are called upon to u their sound jud;mant, and to conault the ColU't when and if bQno tide diput arbe in th cour ot cUsoovery abo~t 1tea that ara po ai~ly protected. A wo~d ut be qivn to th Arkansas authorit.ie that have touched on the iaeuea of privilege and work product in the context ot FOL\\ requeta. In Mc;C:ombJ:idga Yr Cit A( Little Jgck, 298 Ark. 21,, 766 s.w.ad 109 (1989), the Arkan suprue court hald that the Arkan rule of the attorneyclient privilet did not create an exemption to the Arkan rreedoa ot In(~raation Act. 'rhe ca heavily rlied on by Plaintiff, city q( f111ttayillt Yr Nmark, 304 A~k. 179, 801 s.w.ad 275 (ltta), held, ipt9r alia, that legal aemoranda prepared for tbe City tor li ti9ation purpo war not axeapt from tbe Arkan rraedoa ot Intomation Act. ~ttornay work product va thu dbcloaed .. 3 P. 04 : l 11/17/95 14:53 WRI(JiT, LlNU~~Y, ~ Jt::.NN!Nl\"l~ AUG-30-94 TUE 15:47 1u S D[STRICT CLERK NU  .L~ FAX NO, 15019724612 P.05 e Th court tinda 1aarJc and Mgcambri0;1 \" not bindin9 on thi Court and even 1~ the court aawnaa that they ara, the daoiaiona ~o not foracloaa thia _Court troa 1uinJ an order protecting attorney-oliant coDllllunicationa or attorney wor\u003ec product. (See Ark. Coda AM. I 25-ltlOS(b)(I), Which xempte tro th FOll dOOWNftta . which ar protaotecl fro dialoaure by order or rule ot court.) It i intueatinq to note that . ,.- Louiaiana' Public Raoorda Law apeai.riaally expt attorney work product rroa it tena, but not aaterial protected by the attorney-client privilege. sea 'tlllQP y. Lgui1iana Land 1 1Xpl;ratign. aos ,.supp. Ja5 cx.o. 1,a. ie9a). In axaminin; tha Arkan autboriti it i readily apparent that the tocu and concern of the Arkana Stata 9 oourt11 1a with the whole body or Arkan law, ancl the function of Arkan law in the attair ot Arkan oitiaen Thi Padaral cour~, while aituated within Arkan, must navarthel have  1 t prilaary concern th atf 1c1ent adaini tration ot juatio and the tair resolution ot federal olaiaa radreaaable by the parties liti;ant in federal oourt. Thu , taderal law and prooedura auat ba applied. I'l' IS, 'lHD.ll'OU, ORDDID that all papera, 111atarial, and other thing colleotad or praparact by th parti or their raprntativea in anticipation for trial, or otharwi1 within the cope ot the taderal work product: doctrine, and all private couunicationa of any kind between th defendant an4 their counl v1thin the 1 rec09ni1ad boundaries ot the 4 11/17/95 14:54 WRl.GHTf LlNJ.kit.Y; \u0026 . Jl:NNl~t:o NU  .1.~ . , -~.!JG-30-94 TUE 15:48 u~DISTRICT CLERK . FAX HO, 15018724812  . P. 06 91:ornayoliant privilege, an hereby ~rot,~tcad t~oa dicovery . . by tb oppoainq party or ralaa to any third pa~y, except by order ot thi court. 5 i : I e IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, ARKANSAS STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF vs. CIVIL NO. 92-100 HABILITATION CENTER, INC. an Arkansas Corporation d/b/a MILLCREEK OF ARKANSAS; MILLCREEK MANAGEMENT, INC., a Mississippi Corporation; DR. JAMES O. STEPHENS, M.D., {in his individual capacity, and in his official capacities as President and Chairman of the Board of Habilitation Center, Inc., and Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. , and as Chairman of the Board of Millcreek Management, Inc.); JOSEPH L. STEPHENS, ( in his individual capacity, and in his official cap~6ities 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  WANDA MILES-BELL, (in her individual capacity and in her official 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 behalf of defendant Habilitation, Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. and William Sutton. The Attorney General ht:lving f;;lly :responded and the Court being sufficiently -advised, having heard arguments of counsel and having fully considered this matter IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The office of the Attorney General served a request for records under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann 25-19-101, et seq., (hereinafter FOIA) upon Mr. William Sutton, custodian of records at the law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 hob'l.onl PLAINTIFPS EXHIBIT 3  Clark, attorneys for the defendant Habilitation Center, Inc. d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, seeking the law firm's files relating to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. (hereinafter Millcreek Schools) and Habili tation Center, Inc. (hereinafter Habili tat ion) . The requests specifically seek \"documents, notes, pleadings, memorandum [sic] _, work papers, attorney work papers including work product ,p_~epared, genarat~d or relai:ed -to any '.lark done by your finn for Habilitation centers, Inc. (sic] or Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, . ~- ;,. .. -=_:Inc. in State of 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. Code Ann. 16-13-201 and venue was established in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 16-106- . !.01 (d) . Juri.::;dicticn-in .this Court was t~en proper, ,and this CoU::r:t retains that jurisdiction and control over the case pursuant to the aforesaid statutes. Although the Freedom of Information Act establishes a separate authority under which information may be obtained under certain circumstances, there is no question but that a FOIA request to a law firm representing a defendant in a pending case within the jurisdiction of this Court is so intertwined with that pending case as to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2   If the Attorney General makes a FOIA request of a totally separate ~ntity, 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 whatever jurisdiction may 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 of 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 acknowledges -that i-c is iriappr0pric:1.te for -che threat of pot:.ential 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 matters at hand. Venue is proper only in the circuit court of the judicial district in which the entity is located when the defendant is an entity which is a private organization even though supported by public funds. Here, all the FOIA targets are such private --- 3 organizations resisting the turn over of information pursuant to the FOIA. The mere 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 defendants' attorneys seek a protective order in order to protect the attorney/client privilege being asserted on behalf of their clients which include the defendant Habilitation. . J ;. \"'  ..  =_.Habili tat ion has standing by virtue of being a party litigant in the case brought by the Attorney General . The law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark has standing to seek a protective order since it represents Habilitation. 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 information otherwise subject to disclosure, 1 nevertheless, the trial court is 1Ark. Newspaper, Inc. v. Patterson, 281 Ark. 213, 262 S.W.2d 826 (1994), City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, at page 193. 4 able to create an exemption from the FOIA as authorized by Ark . . code Ann. 25-19-105 (b) (8) since the limitations on protective orders do not apply to trial courts. The threshold issue, however, is whether FOIA even applies in the situation before the Court. In order to make that determination, the Court must decide whether the materials sought by the Attorney General are public records within the meaning of the FOIA. 2 Habilitation 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. 3 This Court has also considered a number 2Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-103 (1) provides in pertinent part, \"Public records means writings, recorded sounds, films, 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 functions which are or should be carried out by a \"public official or an employee or government QJ;: any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending . public funds . . n  [emphasis supplied] 3See North Central Association of Colleges and Schools v. Trout Brothers, 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 Rehab Hospital Services Corp. v. Delta Hills Health Systems 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 public 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 may subject the private organization to the FOIA. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. supra. Recently the Arkansas Supreme Court has declared that public funds bohl- 5 ! . I i I ' I 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 receipt 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 for the benefit of or in the place of any public agency. Neither is established by law. Neither is any more . regulated -0r supervised than hospitals or nursing homes or schools. No governmenta1 authority is ~t Habili tat ion nor is any Habili tat ion employee located in any government office. Habilitation determines the programs for the children, not the State . include only direct public funding, not indirect support. Sebastian city Chapter of the A11lerican Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656 (845) S.W.2d 641 (1993). 6 Habilitation and Millcreek are engaged in the private r endering 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 of its income is derived from the 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 precedent, the Court finds that Habilitation and Millcreek are not private entities subject to the FOIA. While the line limiting the reach of 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. 81, 702 S.W.2d 23 (1986), the facts in this case cannot justify a conclusion that \"public business\" was or is being conducted by Habili tation. The intent of the legislature was to expose the performance of public officials and of the decis1ons that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. While the public at large as electors do have an interest in how the Medicaid program is being conducted and should have access to all agency records relating thereto, including those supplied by Habilitation under its contract, they have no overriding interest in how a private service provider renders its services to private 7 individuals. There simply 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 the FOIA. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is Not Subject to the FOIA Additionally, the Court also finds that Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is not' subject to FOIA. It is an obviously private entity .--Eeceiving no obvious public funds, and its clients are not a public entity. The Court believes that the Attorney General's FOIA request to Habilitation and Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is discovery abuse. Defendants and their counsel are entitled to protection to maintain 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 Habili tat ion .should be and  hereby is granted. Additionally~ the protective order is extended to Millcreek of Arkansas, to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc., to Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, and to Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark as attorney to the extent of any mater~als 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 Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-l0S(b) (8) Exemption The Court further finds that even were the defendant subject to the FOIA, the exemption provided in Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) which expressly exempts \"documents which are protected from disclosure by orders or rules of court\" would apply in this case. As the Supreme Court stated in . City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra at 191: A triar' 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 25-19-l0S(b) (8). This Court having underlying jurisdiction over the underlying litigation finds that a protective order should be issued to restrict disclosure of 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 defendants' 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 by the Court when it receives the plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants' Reply to the 9  - Attorney General's Response to the Motion for Summary 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 is 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 of Depositions is hereby granted until otherwise provided in the agreement of the parties. The Motion for Default on the Attorney General's Motion to Strike is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1995. hobJ- ~ day of deJn ~ CAROL C Circuit/ DATE: ,)/t4/ f (\" 10 IN Tiffi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURJ.4 IN TIIB EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANs~M PINE BLUFF DIVISION ROGER HEATHSCOTT vs. NO. 5:00-CV-00333-WRW UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ORDER DEFENDANT For the reasons stated in a telephone conference yesterday, the plaintiff's motion (Doc.5) for a protective order is GRANTED. Accordingly, defendant must not compel the plaintiff to attend the physical examination scheduled for February 14, 2001 , with Dr. Baskin, M.D., and it must not compel the attendance of the plaintiff at the functional capacity examination scheduled for February I 9, 2001. Further, plaintiff must not be disciplined for failing to attend these examinations. I rely primarily upon Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 878 F.Supp. 171 (D.Co. 1995) and Vicary v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 942 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D. Ohio 1996) which seem to be well reasoned. Unlike the plaintiffs in Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, 959 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1992), the plaintiff here unquestionably has a separate, independent cause of action under the Federal Employers Liability Act (\"FELA'') 45 U.S.C.  51 et seq. I believe discovery in the FELA action should proceed under the standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that these rules are not trumped 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 this order is in the nature of an order \"granting, continuing, modifying or dissolving [an] injunction\" which would be subject to an interlocutory appeal under l... PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT. I it ' . i 287 U.S.C.  1992. 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, I grant it in full. IT IS SO ORDERED this l!:!!4 of February, 2001 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCK!T SHEET IN .COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(1) FACP oN 11/a, lo I av \u0026.bN I   RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001  \"_ -- OFFICE OF DESEGREG.4TION MOMTORIN\u0026 IN TIIE 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 ,,,..p~ PLAINTIFF ,,. . . KA-THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING LRSD s.eeks 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 oflnformation 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 conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1705","title":"Court filings concerning Baker recruitment plan, school resources study, orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, and Joshua's objections to unitary status","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":["2001-08-06/2001-08-15"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","School superintendents","Parents' and teachers' associations","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Baker recruitment plan, school resources study, orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, and Joshua's objections to unitary status"],"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/1705"],"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":["18 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel for state defendants; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing of school resources study; District Court, motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, by defendant Gary Smith and for other appropriate and/or alternative relief; District Court, corrected motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, by defendant Gary Smith, and for other appropriate and/or alternative relief; District Court, motion for preliminary injunction; District Court, memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction; District Court, plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, two orders  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  LAW OFFICES MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L .C. TIMOTHY G. GAUGER DIRECT DIAL 501 - eBB- B843 e-mail tgeugeiOmwsgw.com M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings . 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Ann Marshall 42!5 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201- 3!52!5 TELEPHONE !501 -688-8800 FAX !501-688-8807 August 6, 2001 Sammye Taylor Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED AUG S ~ 2001 Clflllf  ,,  ...... ,, Arkansas Atomey General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 123 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et al; No. 4: 82 CV 000866 SWW Counsel and Ms. Marshall: Enclosed for your files is a copy of the Motion To Withdraw As Counsel For State Defendants which I have filed today in the above-referenced matter. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C . Counsel of Record and Ms. Ann Marshall August 6, 200 I Page2 TGG/jd Enclosure Very truly yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. ~a7/4~ By t,,:.J/ f/--; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV000866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR STATE DEFENDANTS  Timothy Gauger and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard, PLLC hereby move the Court for an order pennitting them to withdraw as counsel of record for the State Defendants in the above-referenced case. The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. In February, 2001, the undersigned left his employment with the Office of the Attorney General. He has continued to assist in the representation of the State Defendants as outside counsel under contract with the Arkansas Attorney General's office. That contract has expired, and the undersigned is therefore no longer authorized to represent the State Defendants in this action. 2. The undersigned's withdrawal will not prejudice any party to this action. The State Defendants will continue to be represented by Chief Barrister Sammye Taylor and Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier of the Attorney General's office. WHEREFORE, Timothy Gauger and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard, PLLC respectfully request that the Court enter an order permitting them to withdraw as counsel of record for the State Defendants. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 (501) 688-8800 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 6, 2001, 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 \u0026 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 Roachell Law Firm P. 0. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Sammye Taylor Mark Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 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 V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S REPLY TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN RECEIVED ~UG '7 200\\ -=- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS There are no geographical limits. but rather a discreet targeted area. Baker remains open, on a space available basis, to any African-American student from the LRSD who would like to attend and who is in good standing with the LRSD. The PCSSD has been criticized in the past for recruitment efforts which, its detractors asserted, lacked \"focus\". In contrast here, the PCSSD has identified a minority community proximate to Baker. Baker is the closest public school of any kind to Chenal Park. Because of the limited number of seats that can be made available at Baker, the PCSSD submits that it is not only reasonable but prudent for the PCSSD to designate Chenal Park as its principal recruiting target. 273080-v1 Except for the kindergarten classes to be added, there is little available space at Baker At Page 4 of its objection, Joshua asserts that: Joshua notes that the response of the defendant is from defendant's counsel; it is without affidavit support and the factual representations may not be subject to examination because they have been lawyer generated. PCSSD first notes that the statistical representations made by the PCSSD were supported by exhibits from both the LRSD and the Baker school itself. In contrast, Joshua asserts with absolutely no factual support the following at Page 3: d) The defendants allege that they have not admitted more minority students to Baker, despite the applications of minority students for Baker from Little Rock, because the PCSSD \"has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of [their] requests\". This proposition is factually incorrect on its face. See the ODM report on capacity. Baker does not now appear to be at or near capacity. Indeed, Baker has space to accommodate, without class additions 70 students. It could easily accommodate more than 40 black applicants in grades kindergarten through fifth with ease at one time. While Joshua vaguely refers to an undated and otherwise unidentified ODM report, the fact is, there is no such ODM report which reflects anything even approximating that which Joshua has asserted concerning room for 70 additional students. As the Court can see from a re-examination of Exhibit 1 to the PCSSD Baker Recruitment Plan dated July 13, 2001, with the exception of the fifth grade, a temporary anomaly, there are simply no seats at Baker before the addition of the proposed kindergarten classes. One simply cannot take the two former sixth grade class rooms and magically convert them to seats spread over K-5. The remaining \"math\" contained in subsection d) of Joshua's objection is equally - flawed and consistently obtuse. 273080-v1 2 Joshua spurned the PCSSD overtures to participate in the Baker planning process. On May 18, 2001, the PCSSD proposed the Court approval of the activities complex at Baker. In that submission, the PCSSD specifically proposed that it develop in conjunction with Joshua a specific recruiting plan for Baker. (Motion pp. 2-3) On the same day, counsel wrote Joshua regarding the Baker M to M issue (Exhibit \"A\"), stating in pertinent part that: I would hope that you could meet at least once with us, both so that we could have your input and so you can completely understand the logistics of this issue. I very much need to get it done next week. Please let me know when you could be available. Thereafter, events transpired which required the PCSSD to inform the Court that it appeared that Joshua's participation in such a plan would not be forthcoming at this time. With a copy to Joshua, we specifically informed the Court that: The Court will recall that we promised in our Baker motion field May 18, 2001, that we would consult with Joshua and furnish the Court with some particulars. While it appears that collaboration with Joshua on this issue is not going to occur at this time, nevertheless, we do wish to make a further filing and I wanted the Court to be aware that it should be imminent. (Exhibit \"B\", Emphasis Supplied) Thus, Joshua's current assertion that it was \"not consulted\" and should now be involved is simply false. IF THE COURT AND JOSHUA WISH FOR THE PCCSD TO STATE THE REAL REASON JOSHUA DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE, IT WILL BE OBLIGED TO HONOR SUCH A REQUEST. Conclusion The PCCSD Recruitment Plan is sound given the space limitations at Baker and the proximity of Chenal Park. Joshua's math and its mathematical assertions are not 273080-v1 3 only unsupported, they are simply not of this world. Joshua spurned the PCSSD's invitation to participate in this process and should not be heard to complain now. 273080-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By~4~ ~'-:--- ~.--samuei1ineslll(7606o) J 1/ Attorneys tgrPulaski County Special \\~strict ,J 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 6, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier 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 273080-v1 5 ., EDWARD L. WRIGHT (100~1177) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1113-1081) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE GORD_ O_ATHER.JR. TERRY HEWS DAVID ELL ROGER A. -...SGOW C. DOUGLAS BUfORO. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M, SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L, LOWTHER. JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS VIA FACSIMILE Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www .wlJ.com Of COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wrller's Direct Dlal No. 501-212-1273 mJonesOwlJ.com May 18, 2001 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY f . COX. JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILIER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNlfER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. 1,lcKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROIERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY. Ph.D. ' l.lolnHd lo pn,ctlce before ,,.. Unled Slater Pa/ent - T-Ollicw Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866SWW Dear John: I am writing you this letter in case we do not connect by telephone this afternoon. This morning Karl Brown and I spent a considerable period of time with Beverly Ruthven discussing the issue of space accommodations for additional M to M transfer students at Baker. While we made some progress in that regard, this is not as easy an issue as you might expect. This afternoon I am filing a barebones motion to get the issue of the proposed construction on the judicial table. In the motion I recite that we will be working on the issue of space and transfers and will supplement the motion with a specific plan as soon as possible. I would hope that you could meet at least once with us, both so that we could have your input and so you can completely understand the logistics of this issue. I very much need to get it done next week. Please let me know when you could be available. Thanks. Cordially yours, MSJ:ao A~INDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~muel Jones, Ill cc: Mr. Karl Brown 255714-v1 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY DATE: May 18, 2001 TO: COMPANY: Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. Fax No. 374-4187 Message From: M. Samuel Jones Ill OUR FAX NO.: (501) 376-9442 TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 2 REMARKS: CONFIRMATION: ~By Regular Mail By Expedited Mail None Rush DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: P001 MESSAGE CONFIRMATION REPORT 05/18/01 15: 39 ID:WRIGHT LINDSEY SESS. MODE DATE/TIME TIME DISTANT STATION ID PAGES DIAL RESULT 639 G3.S 05/18 15:38 00'55\" 5013744187 002/002 04 D K 6000 \\ ' \\ ... EDWARD L. WRIGHT (190,- 1977) RDBERT S. LINDSEY (11131111) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S, RATHER, JR. TERRY L, MATHEWS DAVIDII .-LL ROGER A. GOW C. DOUGL FORD, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES II. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J . MULDROW N.11 . NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLU L. SCHLUMBERGER WAL TEA E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOD!N ROGER 0. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlJ.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY JAMES R, VAN DOVER II. TODO WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No . 501 -2121273 mJonuQwlJ.com June 6, 2001 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol, Suite 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. TROY A. PRICE PATIUCIA SIEVERS HARl'IIS JAMES II. MOODY, JIil. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERl'IY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER HT\u0026Y MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI II. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" II. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS II. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W, DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.D. UcenMd lo pracllce - the lklled States Patent and Trademlrlr Offlce Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866SWW Dear Judge Wright: I am awaiting some student enrollment and gee code information from the Little Rock School District before I can finalize our proposed recruitment plan for Baker Elementary. The Court will recall that we promised in our Baker motion filed May 18, 2001, that we would consult with Joshua and furnish the Court with some particulars. While it appears that collaboration with Joshua on this issue is not going to occur at this time, nevertheless, we do wish to make a further filing and I wanted the Court to be aware that it should be imminent. Thank you very much. MSJ/ao cc: Ms. Ann Brown Marshall Mr. John W. Walker 259780-v1 Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Stephen W. Jones Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY} JENNINGS LLP ----7 .7 7  ~ -j?~..__----- -\" .,,,...,...~\"\" A;/  t--' M_..- Samuel ~ones Ill I ... ~ / .,., i /.' (. / '--' \\. ____ .,,... RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION I\\UG 7100\\ tfil\\1e-i: -- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING OF SCHOOL RESOURCES STUDY Pursuant to Section \"J\" of the PCSSD Plan 2000, a School Resources Study was conducted under the auspices of a bi-racial committee of administrators, teachers and others. The roster of the committee is appended toward the end of the report. The report was completed in May 2001 and has now been approved by the School Board. Pursuant to page 6 of the narrative, the reader will note that the Study concluded there was no significant statistical difference between the racial composition of the District schools and the amount of resources allocated to a particular school. The Study in its entirety is appended to this filing as Exhibit \"A\". 273064-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By----:-:---:::,,-+:-~_..;a'.\".\"\"\":::-T\"~------ . 060) r Pula~County Special . rict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 6, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier 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 273064-v1 2 RECEI\\IED AUG 1 0 2001 - OFFIC~OF DESEGREGATI~ MONITOAIN6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUJ.\u0026t EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA~ ~Li=~) ,WESTERN DIVISION EASTElN 1\u0026ii~~'g '.{~~f~SAS AUG OB r31 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, t['~TIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 DEP CU,i;:'\u003c PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDERS ENTERED ON APRIL 27, 2000 AND MAY 9, 2001 BY DEFENDANT GARY SMITH, AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE AND/OR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF This motion is brought by the Joshua Intervenors against the Pulaski County Special School District Defendants (PCSSD) and especially against Defendant Gary Smith, Superintendent of Schools of PCS SD: The matter is of general public importance in that it affects African American students and their parents as a class. It involves implementation of the PCSSD Revised Desegregation Plan and the good faith of the defendants. The persons whose circumstances are being presented to the Court are referred to by fictitious names in order to avoid undue and inappropriate responses by persons related to the PCSSD to their having initiated this action and because of the ages and continuing enrollment in the PCSSD schools as small children. The parents of the minor children are referred to as \"Harold\" and \"Amanda X\". Their actual names will be presented to the Court and to the parties with a request that the actual names be sealed and kept out of the public domain. With this background, the Joshua Intervenors present the following set of facts upon which they seek for relief to be granted: -1- 1. Harold and Amanda X are the parents of Alisha X. Alisha X is a ten year old student who will be enrolled in PCS SD fifth grade elementary program during the 2001-2002 school year. Alisha X has a sister, Alisha Y, age four, who will be entering a four year old program in the PCS SD during the 2001-2002 school year. These parties are members of the certified class herein and they seek relief provided by the standing . Consent Decree or Court Order. 2. Dr. Gary Smith is the Superintendent of Schools of the PCSSD. Carl Brown is the Associate Superintendent of Schools for Desegregation for PCSSD, among other titles. Hazel W., also a fictitious name, was the Principal of Murrell Taylor Elementary School operated by PCSSD during the 1999-2000 school year. The actions which give rise to this motion began in April, 2000. 3. Prior to April, 2000, Harold and Amanda X were parents in good standing at Murrell Taylor Elementary School. Alisha X was enrolled as a student in the Gifted and Talented Program. Her grades, attendance and conduct were sterling. 4. In March, 2000, Alisha X took home a school communication informing the her parents that Alisha X was invited to participate in a Pre-teen America Scholarship Recognition Program. The program was limited to students in Gifted and Talented and was by invitation only. 5. On April 131\\ Harold and Amanda X went to Murrell Taylor PTA, in conformity with the letter notice to Alisha X. Harold X expressed his gratitude to the school for selecting Alisha X to participate in the program. He further stated that he could not believe that the opportunity was real, and requested the support of the PT A so that -2- Alisha's participation in the competitive activity could be facilitated. Hazel W ., the Principal, stood in response to Harold X's statement and said that the invitation was extended to Alisha X in error and that she was not eligible by school rules to participate in this competition. A further reason given for rejecting the application and request for PTA help by School Principal Hazel W. was that Harold and Amanda X were not members of the PT A. Hazel W. was mistaken. Harold and Amanda X were in fact dues paying members for 1999-2000 as well as for the preceding year. 7. On April 14, 2000, Harold X went to Principal Hazel W.'s office to discuss the matter with Hazel W. Hazel W. declined to respond to Harold X's visit. On or about April 18, 2000, Harold X received a letter purportedly from the PT A Executive Board of Murrell Taylor which stated: \"We apologize for any embarrassment that we may have caused you at the PTA meeting April 13, 2000. It was our clerical error and we are sorry.\" See Exhibit A hereto. 8. On April 18, 2000, Hazel W. wrote Harold and Amanda X a letter which is attached as Exhibit B regarding'what she referred to as a \"confrontation that took place in the hallway after the PTA meeting on April 13, 2000\". Hazel X went on to chastise Harold and Amanda X for a letter which they had written seeking financial support for their daughter to attend the \"2000 Pre-teen Arkansas Scholarship Program.\" She then indicated that Harold and Amanda X misrepresented to the public that Alisha X was the school representative in that program. Hazel W. went on to say: \"if this kind of conduct happens again, I want you to know that I will petition -3- Pupil Personnel to revoke the permit for [Alisha X] to attend school at Murrell Taylor Elementary.\" See Exhibit C. ',\" 9. On April 18, Amanda X went to Murrell Taylor in order to pick up Alisha X after school. Hazel W. called plaintiff into the principal' s office. At that meeting which Principal Hazel W. initiated, Hazel W. engaged Amanda X in conversation regarding a purported threat that Hazel W. said a parent had reported_to her that was made after the PTA, the night of the 13th of April. Hazel W. did not identify the parent who made the complaint or provide Amanda X with a written statement from the accusatory parent. Amanda X denied that she had threatened a parent and attempted to leave Hazel W.'s office. At that point, Hazel W. blocked the door. Amanda X sought to get around Hazel W. and in doing so opened the door and the door struck Hazel W. Hazel W. scratched plaintiff in the process as she sought to restrain Amanda X from leaving the office. Amanda X sustained other injuries as a result of her seeking to leave Hazel W. 's office. 10. AmandaX went to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office of Pulaski County on April 19, 2000 where she met \"'.'ith Deputy Prosecutor John Johnson. She informed Deputy Prosecutor Johnson of her treatment. Johnson took her statement verbally and told her that he would get back with her. On information and belief, Johnson then informed Hazel W. that Amanda X was seeking to file a criminal charge against Hazel W. Upon Johnson's representation, Hazel W. then initiated criminal charges against Amanda X three days later. As a consequence of those charges, Amanda X was arrested, handcuffed, taken to county jail, photographed and fingerprinted. She -4- 11. stayed in jail overnight and was released on her own recognizance the next day. Amanda X was pros.ecuted in Jacksonville Municipal Court and charged with battery, second degree, a misdemeanor. The Jacksonville Municipal Court, the Honorable Robert Batton, convicted Amanda X. 12. On April 25, 2000, Judge Batton entered a No Contact Order. See Exhibit D. On 13.  October 4, 2000, Judge Batton convicted plaintiff of Battery of Assault in the Second Degree. In the intervening time period minor Alisha X persisted despite Murrell Taylor's school officials' objections, won third place in the talent contest among 161 Gifted and Talented students from the State of Arkansas. No white Murrell Taylor student placed in the talent competition for the Pre-teen America Scholarship and Recognition Program. Amanda X appealed the decision to the Circuit Court to the Honorable John Langston and her conviction was upheld. That Court did not enter any Orders regarding plaintiff's ingress and egress to public schools in Pulaski County. The appeal abated the municipal court's jurisdiction. 14. Harold and Amanda X bring this action seeking vindication of their civil rights and of their rights under the Revised Desegregation Plan to be involved in the schools activities and lives of their school aged children. They have now have a four year old who will be entering the four year program at a PCSSD school. 15. Harold X appeared before the PCSSD School Board on or about June 12, 2001 in order to contest a restraining order upon Amanda X entered by Defendant Gary Smith, April 27, 2000 and another Order dated May 9, 2001 (see Exhibit E) which -5- restricted her access to and upon any PCS SD school property. The PCS SD Board did not consider the appeal. There is no other provision for appeal provided Harold and Amanda X and other parents from such Orders as those entered by Dr. Gary Smith. 16. The appearance of Harold X before the County Board of Education was pursuant to the Board policy which allowed public comment. The Board, pursuant to a policy drafted by Defendant Gary Smith, may not make responses to public comments. Only Smith may respond. Harold X's appearance was not really an appeal because the board was estopped by its own policy of hearing evidence regarding the matter. 17. Defendant Gary Smith delegated Carl Brown to respond to Harold X. Carl Brown, Desegregation Assistant Superintendent, informed Harold and Amanda X that he would seek to have minor Alisha X transferred into a school in the LRSD. Desegregation Superintendent Brown's view at the time was that such a transfer was not authorized by the transfer provision known as the majority to minority transfer between the LRSD and PCS SD. Under that agreement, however, African American PCSSD school children may not transfer to LRSD schools. 18. The foregoing acts developed because PCS SD School Officials sought to deny entry to a school recognition program to a black child. The only students who were invited by Murrell Taylor school officials to participate in the Pre-teen Recognition Program were white. The school had no standards for determining to whom to extend invitation regarding that honor. Murrell Taylor is a racially mixed school. It has many racial problems. School officials then sought to deter African American participation, on April 18, 2000 by threatening to \"revoke the permit for [Alisha X] -6- 19. to attend school at Murrell Taylor Elementary\". [Underlining added for emphasis] The Joshua Intervenors know of no law, regulation or board policy which allows a student's attendance at a particular school to be \"revoked\" because of a parent's conduct. Moreover, the Joshua Intervenors know of no white parents who have been threatened with punishment because they sought support of their child's participation ,  in a school related activity. Furthermore, the Joshua Intervenors believe and allege that the attendance of Alisha X in a PCSSD school is matter of right rather than privilege and that that right may not be revoked absent compelling circumstances, upon and after exhaustion of defined due process rules and regulations. There are no such rules or procedures of this kind in the PCSSD. There are other persons of African American ancestry who either have been, or, will be similarly affected by PCSSD school officials upon the advent of their seeking to avail themselves of rights, privileges and opportunities which are traditionally made available and limited in PCSSD to white children and their parents. 20. Amanda X's only adverse activity at this school was in trying to leave Hazel W. 's office on April 18, 2000, after being invited into, over the objection of Hazel W. As a consequence of trying to leave Hazel W.'s office, to which Amanda X had been invited, plaintiff was subjected to treatment grossly different from that of white parents. The treatment of Harold and Amanda X and their child, Alisha X, with respect to the Pre-teen Arkansas Scholarship and Recognition Program was racial. Their prosecution was racially motivated. It was initiated solely and simply because Harold and Amanda X sought to avail their minor African American child of an -7- 21. award and recognition which, unknown to this at the time, was not intended to be extended to African_American children, at least at Murrell Taylor Elementary SchooL By denying Amanda X access without threat of prosecution to PCS SD property, PCSSD officials deny Harold and Amanda X the equal right to participate in the school learning environment of their children. They also deny minors Alisha X, and Alisha Y, the four year old first year PCSSD student, the right to have their mother accompany them to and from school and to be available when emergencies arrive to provide care and comfort. School officials are effectively restrained from having any communication whatever with Amanda X The Gary Smith directives therefore tend to deny minor class member an opportunity to even attend schooL School officials have a practice of prosecuting African American students who are truant. Amanda X upon failure to secure attendance of minor Alisha X and Alisha Y is effectively being threatened with denial of truancy laws as welL 22. There is no legitimate public interest involved to support the administrative directives 23, from Defendant Gary Smith. The Order is void or voidable, as being in violation of the Desegregation Plan and of the Fourteenth Amendment and due process clauses. As long as this these Orders stand with respect to Amanda X, they will serve as a precedents for similar actions or exclusion regarding class members by Defendant Smith and his subordinates. Moreover, there is no way such Orders may be subjected to review before the PCSSD School Board. Due process is therefore absolutely lacking to a parent who is adversely affected by the Smith Orders herein. The parents in this case have exhausted whatever remedies which are provided by -8- PCSSD for administrative review of the Gary Smith Orders set forth herein have been unsuccessful. This action before this Court for declaratory, injunctive relief and other possibly relief including damages is the only available remedy that Harold and Amanda X have for being able to provide education to their children. Their children Alisha X and Alisha Y have no likelihood of being successful in school an "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1362","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","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":["2001-08-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","School superintendents","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1362"],"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":["89 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_337","title":"Compliance correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-08/2001-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational law and legislation","School administrators","Walker, John W."],"dcterms_title":["Compliance correspondence"],"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/337"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nWMurscr\nlhw r iKri C- ^41 H02/04 AUG 14 '01 10:08 John W. Walker, P.A, Attorney AT Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3768 PAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 244-5344 August 14, 2001 or counsel ROBERT McHenry. RA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hskcesson Road Litilz Rock, aiucansas 72210 Phons: (SOl) S72-S426  Kai (601) 372-8428 Email: mchanrydSswbeU.net Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris\nI take your letter to be simply a rejection of my request that I be informed of meetings of the compliance committee and of all proposals before the compliance committee has had an opportunity to take a position on them. The rest of your letter is a set of self-serving statements with which I disagree. I will respond to several of them, however, as follows\nFirst, I disagree with your premise. 1 also disagree that you added 8.3 to enable us to have a remedy in the event the District failed to develop the promised programs, policies, and procedures. 1 always expected to be and still expect to be involved before you all develop any new programs, policies or procedures that have anything to do with implementation of desegregation. I have never wavered from that position. That is different from monitoring with respect to compliance programs. Chic dealt with actual compliance and the other dealt with setting into place programs, policies and procedures that will help facilitate desegregation and reduce compliance problems in the first place Second, you indicate that 1 agreed to be paid $150,000.00 for three years for monitoring. In doing so, you attempt to diminish me and beyond that you deprecate me as well by indicating that my principles are subject to purchase. I never agreed to accept $45,000-50,000 a year for monitoring. We agreed to a total settlement amount for past and future fees in the amount of $850,000.00 approximately. The $150,000.00 was simply deferred. Third, dont talk to me anymore about bad faith. You and Les Gamine totally mislead me from day one. You mislead the Court as well. You withheld data from ODM, Drs. Ross and Roberts and me. Because of that, the District is made to appear that it never had any intent to desegregate as promised. You and Clay Fendley appear to me to have schemed to evade and avoid compliance. Now, you try to make me the heavy for the poor state of compliance that you are in. Beyond that, you specifically kept me out of discussions regarding compliance and discussions with the State of Arkansas regarding loan forgiveness. The morning and nightlHw r iwi e:41 HUb 14 01 10:09 Page 2 - Letter to Christopher Heller August 14, 2001 eating meetings which you and Les Gamine had with me, of which there will be no more, we designed to placate and direct me away from the districts activities so that I would not be folly aware of the various nefarious efforts that you. Clay and Les Camme were engineering. were Fourth, you suggest that in three years we have not proposed a single program, policy ira k\u0026lt;/ xk *L- j\n____ , . __ _ r O* J procedure by which to assist the district in meeting its obligations. This simply is wrong, but I or need not address it. You now indicate that since trial I have barged into the offices of District admimstrators unannounced and uninvited and other things. You may say what you wish with respect to my activities. I do not agree, however I notice that you have listed six people as receiving copies. Not one of those people wilt inform you that I have made a request that either of them verbally provide any information to me.............................. since the dont talk to Walker (letter) e-mail' from you. My requests, many of which remain unanswered, have been in writing. If you think that I have breached the Judges order, specify your allegations stating the person, place, and time and witnesses, if any. Otherwise, apologize. Fifth, you now indicate that is inappropriate for me to be personally involved in compliance committee meetings. That is a new position which is contrary to our agreement. Beyond that, it is more appropriate for me to be involved than for you and Clay because represent the paities in quest of remedy. You both have been obstructionists and now prevaricate. It is not enough for the policies, etc. to be presented to me at the time they are being presented to the Board! The idea was clear that we would work out and work through the programs, policies and procedures before they were presented to the Board in the first place Th,, fact that I did not appear before the Board is due to the fact that you and Les Gamine materially we The mislead me about what was taking place in the District, withheld information and informed me of **kA .l\n_____,*1_______________I. _  the many positive things that were happening, when in fact, they were not happening. Finally, it is evident that good faith was not in you or in the district. You mislead the Board, the community, the Court and me as well. This was the administration in action. Those administrators followed your lead! They sought to cover up, by use of slick language, noncompliance. Now your letter to me is another attempt to cloud reality and to deflect from the poor judgment which you and Clay made in letting this District go forward in this court proceeding at this time. You agreed that Little Rock was not ready for unitary status with the caveat that Little Rock was better than other districts and that the covenant should protect the interests ot my clients. I did not agree and I told vou that in January, February, March. April, Kfay and June when 1 proposed to you that we delay your motion and then meet regularly, with defined obiecuves. to address the problems which needed to be worked out to effectively deliver Sfluai educ^ional opportunity to black children Instead, you deliberately chose to put me into the position of having to file objections. You made a money proposal which reflected that you thought you could buy me. You clearly dont know me! My proposal was never about money for myself. Rather, it was to address the issue with the State differently and to seek further benefits from the State that would benefit Black children rather than all\" children. When you say all , it is now clear that you mean non-Black children. Sure, I want adequate compensation for attentionOUIO f' WHLKtK LHW H IKPl 241 P04Z04 AUG 14 01 10:09 Page 3 - Letter to Christopher Heller August 14, 2001 my work. You receive it and there is no public issue or discussion about it and there is no limit your charges. on 1 have readily met with you, Les Carnine and other district staff people when called upon, provided I received adequate notice, and have sought to be involved on a continual basis with the Districts purponed compliance efforts. I have employed at least three people who regularly engaged in monitoring activities. That reflects good faith on our part. Your office, on the other hand, has lead the District into a more racially segregated posture than it was three years ago and with all of that, you try to shift the blame onto me. Shame on you, Heller. You are supposed to be a maa, not less. Your conduct, advice, actions, and crying are traditional and typical. I need say no more. Check your own fees, however, and see who benefits from continuing this case! Inasmuch as you have seen fit to copy your associate superintendents and Dr. James, in your effon to nut me in my place, they are being copied with this letter as is the ODM. The question yet remains about meeting the needs of Black children. For Black children, is there no balm in [the Little Rock School District] ? Is there no physician [here]? Apparently, not. We war when we promised to make peace and to educate Black children. It cannot end until justice is delivered to those children. Sincerely, i?tohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann Marshall Ms. Sadie Mitchell Mr. Junious Babbs Dr. Don Stewart Mr Brady Gadberry mum John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile -244-5433 August 15, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLnet Mr. Chris Heller Triday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: I am in receipt of your letter and motion. First of all, you have stated to the Court that LRSD has attempted to confer with Joshua, but Joshua refused to narrow the request or allow LRSD the time needed to respond. I have no record of either a writing or telephone call which allows you to make that contention. Secondly, please confirm or deny that you have or your office has advised the principals to destroy, erase, alter or modify their e-mail correspondence. If you deny, please let me know what information you have on this subject as the official position of the Little Rock School District. incerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record received AUG 17 zoni OFFICE OF desegregkhon monitoring Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark IIRRRCMEL H. FRIDAY (1\u0026lt;3ZZ-199-I\u0026gt; WILLIAM H. SUn'ON. PA. BYRUM M. nEMAN. JR PA. JOED. BULL. PA. jAMSA.BUmY. PJK. I'RBDERICXB. UMtRY. Pu\\. USCaR B\u0026gt; RAVIR. JR.. rA. JAMES C. CLARK. JE.. PA. THOMAS P. LEGCSTT. Pa. JOHN OEWEY WATSON. PA. PAUL B. BNHaM hi. pa. larry W.BUBKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIPF MKBCl. JL. Pa. JAMES EPWARO HARRU. PA. J. PHIUIP MALCOM. PA JAHGSM. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMbSM. SAXTON. PA. J. SHEPnERD RLSSELL IlL PA, 13ONALD H. bacon. P.A. W1U4AM THOMAS BAXTER, PA barky C. rfUH, PA. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P A JOSEPH U. HWT.JK., pa. nUZABETH KOttKEN MUEPAT. PA. CKUSTOPHEK lICVUtE. PA LAURA HEMSLEY SMITH. PA. XOlCRTS. FHAFEE. P.A. WILLIAM M. CRIFFIN UI. PA MICHAEL S. MOOKK. PA OIAMCS. MACKEY. PA Walter ul pa. KEVIN A CRASS. PA. WJLUAM a. VADUliLL. JRm PA SCOTT J. LAMCaTTER. PA. M. OAYLE COW.BY. Pa. ROEfiRT B. BEACH. JR.. PA I. LEt BROWN. PA James c. eAniu.jiu ha#.rta.ucht.pa. SCOTT H. TUCKER, PA. cutaltom wade, pa PRICE C. CaRPWJER. pa TONIA P.JOnW. Pa UAVIO O. WlUOH. Pa ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fddayflrin.cofR 2000 neotONs center 400 WEST CAPITOL little rock. ARKANSAS 72201-3403 telephone 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376*2147 297 east MILLSAP, SUITE 7 FAVeTTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72763 TELEPHONE 50t\u0026lt;eBS-36H FAX S0V9eS*21*7 20 NORTH FIFTH STREET eLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 7231$ telCRhOnb arO'Yaa-ziQB FAX 870\u0026gt;ri2-2Sll JT.FFREY H. MOORE. P.A OaVIOM. CKAJ'. fA CAKLa CUNHXU cpainhouk. JOHN C. FfiHntEY. JV FA. JONAHH KllkAHATH CONIOUO. P.A R. CHRlSTOmWK VA\u0026gt;SOH. PA. CRSCORT O.TATlQR. FA. TONY L WILCOX, P.A F\u0026amp;AM C. HICKMAN. PA. \u0026gt;8TTY J. DtMOKT. PA. lymuaM. johmsoh. pa. JAMES V. Smith, pa. CUFTORO W. nUNKETT, DANibU V. HEKKlNOrOH. PA. MARVIN U CHILOeilS X. COLEMAN WDSTRROOK JR ALUSON j.cornwdu. kLLUN U. OWENS JASON 0. HKHDREN MUCIB.npWRU. MICHAEL E. KAKHQY KbVLT MUMMY MCQUREN JOSCTK MCKAT ALbXAHDRA A. 1F8AH IAYT.TaYLC*. martin a. KASTSN 0AYAN W. DUKk jOSSKi C. wicholS iwliiVT. smith RYAN A. ROVMAH TIMOTHY C. KXkLL T. MICIIB.U\nATOR KARSN S.MAlBF.ItT Sarah m. ccn'ON eouMcc. M. CLARK WILLIaM I- TERRY WILLIAM L. Patton, jr. H.T. IARZLLLMI. Pa. JOHN C. ECltOU. PA a.D. WCaLLIFTER C. FGNDLtY, JB- LITTUC ROCK TKt Ml\u0026lt;S7*aS2a FAX August 16,2001 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 RE\nLRSD vs. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Attached please find an August 15,2001, FOIA request from Mr. John Walker requesting emails of all principals and administrators in the District. Our response is also attached. We would like to place this FOIA request on the table for discussion at the hearing on our Motion for Protective Order. Also attached please find Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt and the accompanying brief. If possible we would tike for the Court to consider this motion at tomonows hearing as well. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, John C.Tendley, Jr. JCF/bgb attachment(s) cc: Dr. Ken James (via fax) Mr. John Walker (via fax) Mr. Richard Roachell (via fax) Ms. Ann Marshall (via fax) Ms. Sanunye L. Taylor (via fax) Mr. Steve Jones (via fax) Mr. Sam Jones (via fax) RVHOMESSBroonMndleyUASD^iidge hjW3813744107 URLKER UAU FJWl HJts x:i 't31 1^:30 leiuud JOHNW.WaZXSR SfUWNCHItDB Mr. John Ruffin Infomwoion Services LItde Rode School District SIOW. Markham LittloRock,AikaiiS8a 72201 Dimt Mr. Ruffin: John W.Wau(EK,RA. ATToaimATtw iTsaBioMsmr LmuReex. Aoumbas 78206 Taunom^l) 374.3758 August 15,2001 MBESTIU OOUNSBb attS unw itm AnuMAii Ttiio Pma: (SOU sn-MU - rx (nt) m-Msa EMUI.\nodHBqeawMLMt Thia nquesi is pwsuant to the Aikaosas FOIA. Plaan toake avall^lc for review and inspection all e-mails foam the main server (under your direction} for all adaiinisnajore and priocipals who have anything to do with Implementation of the Dinriot's Desegregation Plan. Mey we begin our review on Mondsy, Aogw 20.2001 at 10.*OO aJS.7 Please advise by return fbcslmlle. JWW\n|p I Clay F.eRidley - LRSD v. PCSSD MV** Page ll From: To\nDate: Subject: Clay Fendley FAX: Mr. John Walker@3744187 8/16/01 11:22AM LRSD V. PCSSD This is in response to your FOIA request of August 15, 2001, to Mr. John Ruffins. Mr. Ruffins advises that he does not have access to e-mails on District servers. E-mails must be accessed via the desktop computer of the user. Accordingly, Mr. Ruffins is not the \"custodian\" of all e-mails. You have requested the e-mails of all administrators and principals who have anything to do with implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan.\" This would be every administrator and principal In the District. Please be advised that we intend to bring this request to the attention of the Judge Wright for discussion at the hearing on our Motion for Protective Order. \" Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: fendley@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-3323 Direct Fax 501-244-5341 CC\nJames, KenSfcJ Wcf IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT. ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Contempt states: 1. At the June 29,2001, hearing in this case, LRSD asked the Court to prohibit attorney John Walker from violating Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and to cease contacting LRSD representatives outside the presence of counsel for LRSD. This Court ruled as follows: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, thats true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that regard, even though you are a public institution. Transcript, p. 45. 2. Attorney Walker has flagrantly violated the Court's order. Most recently on August 15,2001, attorney Walker barged into and interrupted a meeting between Jo Evelyn Elston, LRSD Director of Pupil Services, and Dr. Terrence Roberts. Attorney Walker confronted Ms. Elston with allegations that all African-American students in Advanced Placement (\"AP) courses were flunking. LRSD denies these allegations. 3. On June 30,2001, counsel for Joshua called and spoke on the telephone with James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman, and suggested that Washington testify that he feared for his job if he told the truth. As the Court heard, Washington did not so testify.ity uuo 4, On July 19,2001, attorney Walker walked into a closed door meeting in the office of Dr. Don Stewart. The apparent purpose of this intrusion was intimidation. Attorney Walker pulled up a chair and sat down for a short period of time and then left. 5. Upon mfoimation and belief, there are likely other incidents of which counsel for LRSD have not been made aware. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that attorney John Walker be held in contempt\nthat he again be ordered not to contact LRSD personnel outside the presence of counsel for LRSD\nthat the Court issue an appropriate sanction for violations of the Court's order of June 29, 2001\nthat ,. an escalating sanction be established for future violations\nthat Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein\nand that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg,, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY\nChristopher Heller (#81083)! ' John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2ity uu I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on August 16, 2001: 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 Roachcll Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Dese^cgation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sanunye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller j ) John C. Fendley, Jr. FAHOMSVENbLEYOJtSD 2MIla\u0026gt;.i\u0026lt;ii.eoiaan|.\u0026gt;|al 3lej uuo IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL J' ' INTERVENORS MEMORANDT IM W1HEF TN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MCTW FOR COOTBiil^ This Court has authority to hold attorney John Walker in contempt under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) and the Court's inherent power. See See Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp-2d 1118,1125-26 (E.D, Ark. 1999). Two requirements must be met before a party may be held in contempt. First, the court must have fashioned a clear and reasonably specific order, and second, the party must violate that order. At the June 29, 2001, hearing in this case, LRSD asked the Court to prohibit attorney Walker from violating Rule 42 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and to cease contacting LRSD representatives outside the presence of counsel for LRSD. This Court issued a clear and reasonably specific order in response to that request. The Court stated as follows: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, that's true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that regard, even though you are a public institution. Transcript, p. 45. Attorney Walker has violated that Order on at least three occasions. The most recent violation occurred August 15,2001. Attorney Walker barged into and interrupted a meeting between Jo Evelyn Elston, LRSD Director of Pupil Services, and Dr. Terrence Roberts. Attorney Walker confronted Ms. Elston with allegations that all African-American students in Advanceduuj\u0026gt; Placement (\"AP\") courses were flunking. Additionally, on June 30,2001, attorney Walker called and spoke on the telephone with James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman, and suggested that Washington testify that he feared for his job if he told the truth. On July 19,2001, anomey Walker walked into a closed door meeting in the office of Dr. Don Stewart. The apparent purpose of this intrusion was simply intimidation. Attorney Walker sat in the meeting for a short period of time without comment and then left. Attorney Walkers conduct on these dates clearly violates the Court's Order of June 29, and he should be held in contempt for those violations. Moreover, Attorney Walker's conduct violates Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct. The Eighth Circuit qrheld a district court's sanction of an attorney for violating Rule 4.2. See Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787 fS*** Cir. 19981. After discussing the violation of Rule 4.2, the Eighth Circuit stated, \"These practices were evidently committed in furtherance of the case pending before the court. The court has power to discipline attorneys who appear before it.\" Id. at 790. Likewise, this Court should sanction attorney Walker for his violations of Rule 4.2. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY:. M.U C- 4yWzUA^ vA Christopher Heller (#810^3) T John C. Pendley, Jr. (#92182). 2t|U uxu CERTinCATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on August 16,2001: Mr. John W. Walker 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 Finn 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Dese^gation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr, FAHOME''FENDLY'iLfiP 200 I\\des-niouoent8ntpi\u0026gt;bn.wp4 3rage i.ot.J  I KasaMC5ty COSl s\u0026gt;ssnjgffi3g5_. -j^-gf^ggAce-, j^cAtauom- ^*\u0026lt;- CASEStl ssQs: ixs * Home  Local T-ttB  CAREER I mail this story ! Plain text for onntina Judge firm on demunds for KC school board i\u0026amp;quirv Sy DEANN SMTrS - TJte Kansas Ci^' Siar S\nIS ti-S..-Liisirfci.,hiife_I}eac. on Liitffijiiay. .siKrdjaamK_^twi8i,aiBi.iS3ai_siitne-- grrwmd m. .te.dEromdsJfer.mv^sti?5^^  ' ' hiEK3iQCE^Cinirt-ian^^ case: ln.rn3eLitrZxvfttf)EoJta2tftt\n..rjaiue..tfaK rKn-sed.to\nte3ir nm^esiigarinm . ls7ajd\np3taM3^-..2oH jjjtCTSjnjarjagEJRCjJt, . ti5r'.\u0026amp;^JEl -Bst- iS7.i^!55^1-.S\n\"fer :aE'pmf-iaaatram%\ni^iS--a5'-:asais-'c^^ nMJitw'CEarisfc\u0026lt;:^^ raibgrlaaa tuu-tiinc mvesfe^Ui-irs Whipple also defined .micromanagement as vmiippie board members taking-actions that exceed their statutory authority or acting contrary to district policy or procedure. In a second order, Whipple gave the district and the plaintiffs in the ca3\u0026amp;ixnih.Jli^.3.1 ja t^udSii\u0026amp;^xleiaded hifctnnariwa pnanasis itjwaid meeiunLrnmTrxriieiKtt^iaJ,^ mriuri.n^rrh\u0026gt;5Jj!n...thK. achi?3K3iH3a. hsSwsic Nark-irad. wtee .anrtrn.t.'-.. \"SevaUse^tob'-TU'affy by uiv rdraufeif\n/ uAf its cbnrl-rorderfeti bbJigatidhs, the court will grant no further extensions of time on its request for information on the progress of tire (districts') court-ordered obligations,\" Whipple wrote. Mile.Delaney, an attorney .for the district, declined comment. Arthur A. Benson.U, attorney tor the plaintifJachoolchildren, was out of town and could.not be .reached. http\n//www.kcstar.cQmyitemypages/local.pat,iQcaL'3acce6flJ.816,tml U8/17/2UU1 I fage 2 ot:3 The school board .is expected to discuss the orders during.its Tuesday night.meering. including whether to appeal to the Sth. U.S. Circuit-Court of Appeals. In. addition, to backing ofii a.previous order for fiiiJ.-time investigatnrs. Whipple dropped a directive to allow .McClain and the .investigators to attend closed board meetings. O.n June .19, Whipple directed.McClam to .hire .invest!gators to .look .into allegations that-school. board members engaged in.micromanagement, and patronage. .He saidMcClain did.not.have to provide the district with advance notice of investigations. .He also said .McClain and .his investigators could attend closed .meetings of the school board and its. committees. The district .filed a.motiQn .fQr.reconsideratiQn and asked Whipple to sharply limit the investigations. Benson, asked for a part-time investigator on an as-nesded basis. Benson.and the district asked tor a definition of. niicromanafiement, and opposed allowing.McClain and .investigators to attend closed meetings. On Thursday, Whipple said.he wouldauthorize hiring an. investigator to work up to 20.hours per week. The district must pay for the investigator and administrative staS: Whippie saidthatafiter four months he would decide whether the investigator should be retained, and on a part- or fid J-time basis. Whipple made it clear that.he would change his mmd .on. notallowing .investigators to attend closed board .meetings .if.he .learned the board was \"not strictly complying with.the Missouri. Sunshine Law. ft .He rejected the district's assertion that he had.no authority to investigate allegations, of patronage or micromanagement. He saidthe federal appeals court .had directed him \"to spare.no effort\" in eliminating vestiges of desegregation. achievement gap,\" he said. 'One vestige of discrimination remaining within the (district) is an He said.if \"a culture of .micromanagement and patronage\" existed among board members, it would.handicap their efforts to improve student achievement and.reform the district. Whipple saidknowing whether micromanagement and patronage exist means, the \"brief intrusion.\" on. the district \"pales .in comparison to the likely benefit.\" \"Tire court also reminds the (district) that.it.was. the (district) itself that httpL/www.kcstar. comyitem7pages/local,pat,Iocal/3acce6W. 816,.html 08/17/20UI utMAfW ixtjjj.v/u.IVl. IKi^SGIJUUI.UUttl.U inquiry Page 3 of3 invited .investigation into allegations of corrupt governance,\" Whipple wrote.  He said he would nor.require advance notice of investigations, because of the danger of tainted or Jost evidence. Still.pending befcne Whipple is. the districfs reqaest.\u0026amp;r hini.to -t^inquisJi court control .in student assignment, capital improvements. finances and transportation. -In one of the orders Thursday, he said the district's recent .report on what still needed to be done to eliminate the vestiges of segregation. lacked specificity. He said he would.not tolerate as. an. excuse the recent departure of .Benjamin.Demps Jr. as Superintendent and the appointment of.Bernard Taylor Jr. as. his replacement. To.reach.DeAnn Smith, education writer, call (816) 234-4412 or send e- mail to dsnijth(2ikcstar.com. All content  2001 The Kansas Citv Siar httpCi wwwikcittar.coiiL'neinzpiiif^'itJCiiLpaiduciiL JaccefeiU 8Tn..niiiii . OS'! 2UUIJOHN W. WALKES SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 deceives AUG 2 7 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGRf GATIGN MOW/TOftlMQ OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendehson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydigswbell.iiet Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 17, 2001 Mr. John C. Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2900 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: I have spoken with Dr. Terrence Roberts, after providing him a copy of your motion, and he has provided the attached response for your information. I am bringing this response to the attention of the Court. You also made other allegations regarding Mr. James Washington and Dr. Don Stewart. Would you kindly favor me with their affidavits as well as the affidavit of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, if you intend to have these matters addressed with the Court today. I remind you that we spoke with Mr. James Washington in your presence and that he has already testified. He testimony contradicts your contentions. With respect to Dr. Stewart, I am unaware of what your contention is. Are you suggesting that I asked Dr. Stewart to provide to me information outside your presence? Please let me have this information from you by return facsimile before our hearing this afternoon. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js Attachment cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Dr. Terrence J. Roberts Ms. Ann S. Marshall August 17, 2001 Nir John Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Terrence J, Roberts, PhD. P.O Box 96 Pasadena, CA91102 (626) 644-4956 Mr John W, Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 received OfflCEOF DESESRESMlOHttOWniWNfi AUQ27 2001 Dear Mr. Fendley and Mr. Walker: I It was brought to my attention this morning by Mr. John Walker that a motion to cite Mr. John Walker in contempt of court was made by Mr. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. I Jylr provided me with the motion. I am addressing the facts in paragraph 2 of the motion. I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Mr. Walker and twu uFiiiis Vv'czc itiVilou into her offices. Mr. Walker did not barge into Ms. Elstons office. Mr. Walker was cognizant of M I'Ciefore, he addressed his statements io me in order to cSaiify ie5i=.e being discussed between Ms. Elston nn.d tv**\"* i.u I i I { f 1 i Terrence J. Roberts, P Plcssc contAct m\u0026amp; iF AdditiQi^Al truOini.^iiv.M Sinccreiy, fii I I I I (I John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 17, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendeeson Road Little Rock, Aekansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.xiet Mr. John C. Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: I have spoken with Dr. Terrence Roberts, after providing him a copy of your motion, and he has provided the attached response for your information. I am bringing this response to the attention of the Court. You also made other allegations regarding Mr. James Washington and Dr. Don Stewart. Would you kindly favor me with their affidavits as well as the affidavit of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, if you intend to have these matters addressed with the Court today. I remind you that we spoke with Mr. James Washington in your presence and that he has uailirveaa.\u0026gt;dayj tLevsotitfmievdu.. xHxec tLeCstdiimuiiouniiyy bcuoiniLtridaudiii/cLtbs yyuoLuiir ccooiniiteennTtiioonuss.. WwiiLthii rreessppcecctt ttoo DUrf.. bStteewwaarrtt,, Ii aamm unaware of what your contention is. Are you suggesting that I asked Dr. Stewart to provide to me information outside your presence? Please let me have this information from you by return facsimile before our hearing this afternoon. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js Attachment cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Dr. Terrence J. Roberts Ms. Ann S. Marshall Terrence J. Roberts, PhD. P.O. Box 96 Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 August 17, 2001 Air. John Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, .AR 72201 Air. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Fendley and Air. Walker: It was brought to my attention this morning by Mr. John Walker that a motion to cite Mr. John Walker in contempt of court was made by Air. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. Air. Walker provided me with the motion. I am addressing the facts in paragraph 2 of the motion. I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Air. Walker and two of his associates were invited into her offices. Air. Walker did not barge into Ms. Elstons office. Mr. Walker was cognizant of the courts orders\nand, therefore, he addressed his statements to me in order to clarify issues being discussed between Ms. Elston and myself. It is my assertion and belief that Air. Walker was not in violation of the courts order and that he was simply being helpful to me in making sure that I had adequate information upon which to base my recommendations to the District. Please contact me if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Terrence J. Roberts, PhD.5 John W. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rook, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374.3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 17, 2001 or COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKr, PA. DONNA J McHenry 8210 Hendebsom Road n HOOR- AEKANaAS 72210 Phone: (BOI) 372-3425  Fax (501) S72-3428 Email: mcheniydSswbelLnet Mr. John C. Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock. AR 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: I have spoken with Dr. Tenence Roberts, after providing him a copy of your motion and he has provided the attached response for your information. I am bringing this response to the attention of the Court. You also made other allegations regarding Mr. James Washington and Dr. Don Stewart Would you kindly favor me with their affidavits as well as the affidavit of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, if you intend to have these matters addressed with the Court today. 1 remind you that we spoke with Mr. James Washington in your presence and that he has already testified He testimony contradicts your contentions. With respect to Dr. Stewart, I am unaware of what your contention is. Are you suggesting that I asked Dr. Stewart to provide me information outside your presence? to Please let me have this information from you by return facsimile before our hearing this afternoon. Sipwrcly, John W. Walker JWW\njs Attachment cc\nHonorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Dr, Terrence J. Roberts Ms. Ann S. Marshall Terrence J. Roberts, PhD. P.O Box 96 Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 August 17, 2001 Mr. John Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Fendley and Mr. Walker: It was brought to my attention this morning by Mr John Walker that a motion to cite Mr. John Walker in contempt of court was made by Mr. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. Mr Walker provided me with the motion. 1 am addressing the facts in paragraph 2 of the motion. I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Mr. Walker and two of his associates were invited into her offices. Mr. Walker did not barge into Ms Elstons office. Mr Walker was cognizant of the courts orders\nand, therefore, he addressed his statements to me in order to clarify issues being discussed between Ms. Elston and myself It is my assertion and belief that Mr. Walker was not in violation of the courts order and that he was simply being helpful to me in making sure that 1 had adequate information upon which to base my recommendations to the District. Please contact me if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Terrence J. Roberts, PhD.John w. Walker, p,a. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Ltitle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED 'AUG 212001 CR3SQF JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS August 20, 2001 ______OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY RA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendeeson Road Little Rock, Aekansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheuryd^wbellnet Dr. Donald Stewart Chief Financial OfiBcer Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Stewart: You have not responded fully to my letter regarding Administrative Directive KDB. Your response did not address the author of the directive nor the itemization (number) of documents from the Friday Firm invoices. It appears that Directive KDB, effective July 16, 2001, was written to apply to the Joshua Intervenors. Surely, no one else, except for maybe the local newspaper, has asked for more than 25 copies in a month. Secondly, this came after the Judges hearing in chambers on June 29, 2001 where she approved our use of FOI requests. Directive KDB appears to be retaliatory toward us because of the Judges orders. In that a copy of this letter is being sent to Mr. Clay Fendley and Ms. Ann Marshall, I putting you and Dr. James on notice that I intend to bring this matter before the court unless you rescind it forthwith and provide us the information without charge. am incerely, '\u0026lt;John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nMr. Clay Fendley Ms. Ann Marshall^001 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS AUQ 2 2 John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 20, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydi^wbelLnet Mr. John C. Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026lt;5^ Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: Please provide to me the afBdavit statements of Mr. James Washington, Dr. Don Stewart and Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston which form the bases for your Motion for Contempt Sincerely, (zjJoohhnn W. Walker JWW:js JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS HVEP- John W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 August 20,2001 AUS 2 1 2201 DBS'! Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net BESSKSiKHotA Dear Clay: In that you have taken ten days, and in that the information that I am seeking is readily accessible, you may have 20 additional days to respond to the FOIA involving the principals. I will agree to a protective order regarding personal student information provided by FREPA. In that the LRSDs motion to be declared unitary is not a trial on the merits of the case, and in that no discovery schedule has been approved by the court, I can not agree to the procedure you suggest. There are several reasons for this. The most compelling reason, however, is that the mformation I request has routinely been provided upon request in the past\nand that we have not requested to use the FOIA in the past for these purposes. We now use the FOIA to make sure that the district is clear about what we need and to give the district officials time to obtain it without interference with their jobs. You lawyers interrupted the process when you decided you wanted to scrutinize each request that came from us. To us, that means that you not only want to review the matter but to structure the response as well. Clay, the documents we requested to review need not be exaimned first by you if they are public documents. We dont even need to copy many of them. We are entitled to see them even if the purpose is unrelated to your motion. You make things more difficult and then try to blame us for having done so. With respect to the federal rules, we will request that you make available witnesses without depositions. If we seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form or either by interrogatories. fry truly yours, ihn W. Walker JWW\nlp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall001^744107 WHLKtk LAW FIRM 310 P02 AUG 20 01 14:36 e4 Indivi/iual^pjfToach to a W'orU of \"Knowledge^' August 20, 2001 John W, Walker. P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker\nEnclosed is a copy of the Little Rock School District's Administrative Directive KDB, which was proposed by the Cabinet as a result of changes in the law. The new directive became effective on July 16,2001. Administrative Directives do not require School Board approval. Except for requests made by you or on your behalf, there have been no FOIA requests to the District since the effective date of this Directive\ntherefore, no one else has been charged for copies. It is the intent of the District that the new directive will be followed completely in the future. It is our understanding that you requested copies of all Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark invoices for the past three years and that is what was copied for you. Please let me know rf 1 can provide additional information. Sincerely, . Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Chief Financial Officer Enclosure 810 W Markham  little Kock, Arkansas 72201  wwwJredJcl24utus 501-324-2000  fine: 501-324-2032OW1OY441BY WHLKtK LAW FIRM 310 P03 AUG 20 *01 14:36 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT p- ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB I Effective: July 16, 2001 PROCESS FOR MAKING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FOIA Purpose The specific purposes to be served by these procedures are:  To ensure that the District complies with the requirements of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as amended in 2001\n To ensure reasonable and timely citizen access of District records\n To ensure that the privacy rights of students and staff are protected in the release of District records\nand  To ensure an orderly and efficient process for obtaining information from the District. Definitions Records\nRecords shall be interpreted as writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, or data compilations in any form, required by law to be kept, which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions. All records maintained by LRSD employees in the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records. Before records are provided for inspection or copying, the custodian of the records shall determine if the records contain information that is not releasable under the FOIA, Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), or other applicable statutes. If the records contain information that is not releasable, it shall be the responsibility of the custodian to delete that infonnation and make the remainder of the records available. Electronic Information: For the purpose of this administrative directive, electronic information shall be interpreted to include all data processing time required to manipulate computer or other technologically stored or generated data into a format that is transferable to the requester. Custodian of the Records\nFor the purpose of these regulations and the convenience of the public, the custodian of the records will be the person having administrative control of that record.I Sfe)lJY4418-,' WHLKtK LAW FIRM 310 P04 RUG 20 01 14:36 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE\nKDB Effective\nJuly 16, 2001 continued . Process far Obtaining Information through the FOIA  Any citizen of the State of Arkansas may request records open under the Arkansas FOIA from the LRSD's custodian of the record.  The request may be made in person or by telephone, mail, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic means provided by the custodian.  To facilitate the retrieval of the records, the request shall be sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the records with reasonable effort.  The requester should indicate whether or not he/she wants to inspect the records or receive copies of the records. The LRSD will copy the requested records when the requester wants copies and it is reasonable for the District to make the copies.  In an effort to be responsive to the public and avoid accounting procedures that are not cost effective, the District will not charge for the first 25 pages that it copies for a citizen unless the total number of copies exceeds 25 in one calendar month. If it requires more than 25 pages of copies to meet a single request for information, or if a citizen makes additional requests for information within the month which would require more than 25 total pages of copies, the District will charge the requester 25 cents for each copy including the first 25 pages. Additionally, the District will charge the requester the actual costs of mailing or transmitting the record by facsimile or other electronic means. Special requests for electronic information will be handled as follows: 1. The District may agree to summarize, compile, or tailor electronic data in a particular manner or medium and may agree to provide the data in an electronic format to which it is not readily convertible. 2. Where the cost and time involved in complying with the requests are 3. 4. 5. relatively minimal, the District may agree to provide the data as requested. If the custodian agrees to a request, the District will charge the requester the actual, verifiable costs of personnel time exceeding two (2) hours associated with the tasks, in addition to copying costs. The charge for personnel time shall not exceed the salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the discretion of the District, has the necessary skill and training to respond to the request. The District will provide an itemized breakdown of charges for expenses incurred.bk)lJ744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 310 P05 AUG 20 01 14:37 LITTLE ROCK xSCHOOL DISTRICT continued ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KOB Effective: July 16, 2001 if the estimated fee exceeds twenty-five dollars ($25.00), the District will require the requester to pay the fee in advance.  Requests must be made during normal business hours. Any requests received by facsimile or other means after regular business hours will be considered received at the start of the next business day  If the information is in active use or storage at the time of the request, reasonable time will be established for the custodian to comply. The custodian will set a time, date, and place within three days at which time the records will be made available. To the extent practicable the custodian will do this in consultation with the person requesting the record for the convenience of both parties. If the person requesting the information does not come at the appointed time, the records may be returned to active use or storage.  In the event that the requester is seeking information regarding a third party, the custodian ot the records will within 24 hours make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person aboirt whom the information is being sought. If personal contact cannot be made within the 24 hours, an overnight letter shall be sent to the last known address of the subject of the request. The District may also seek an Attorney Generals opinion about the release of the records. If an Attorney Generals opinion is sought, the records will not be released before the Attorney General has issued his/her opinion.ouiji r4iia i WHLKtK LHW (- IWl 310 P01 AUG 20 01 14:36 ^HN W. WAL1\u0026lt;ER, P.A. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadwt^ Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 TAX TRANSMISSION COVER SWEET Date: [2(30 f To: Tax: Rl: Sender: YOV SHOULD RDCSIVE [ r-T -----------------------(Indodm^ coveT shett)] PAGB(S), INCLUDING THIS COVFn SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The mformaiion contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information mtended only for die use of tlie individual or entity named above. If the reader of 7r  \"OC Che intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the mwi^dreap lent, you yeher^ notified chat any dissemination. stribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this coixununication in error, please the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. t^hone. and return the original message to us at the above addr^ viaJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, PA. Attohney Ai Law 1723 Bboadway Lttile Rock Askanbas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 OF COUNSEL aOBEKTMcHENEy,PjL DONNaJ. MeHENEY 8210 HsHDOaw Eq*d LrnL Kock, Akiunbas 72210 PHONt (BOI) S72-8426  PaX (501) S72-3428 Eu\u0026amp;il: mehfinrydiSswbell.ner August 20,2001 - r Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Fendley\nI intend to request a copy of Dr. Lesleys vitae and am informing you of same. If you have it, would you be kind enough to forward it to me. In that I dont imagine that you do, and it should not be a controversial matter at all, I am forwarding this request to her as well. Sincerely, in W. Walker JWWilp cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Ms. Ann Marshall 02:TT X0. cc 3n 0/20d SVC waij non aaxiwn z.8TtfiT0s i John W. Walker, ra. Attoeney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Litilb Bock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (601) 374-4187 JOHNW.-WALKER SHAWN CHILDS August 22,2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 Hzhdekson Boas LiTThE Bool absaksas 72210 PHOHfc: (BOI) S72-S426  Fax (601) S72-3428 RMAn.' mchen^i^swbelljiet Dr. Bonnie Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Dr. Lesley: Will you please provide me a copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation. incerely, Ji W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Ms. ?^nn Marshall 0c:tT t0. 2c 900 0/0d waij (w aa\u0026gt;n0n j.8trfizt0=Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 August 20, 2001 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear John\nThank you for your letter of August 15, 2001, to which you attached certain Little Rock School District standardized test results. The data you included were for the SAT-9 taken by 7'* graders in September 2000 and for the ACTAAP benchmark exams for 8* graders, administered in April 2000. We are in the process of gathering various test data from the districts. However, due to the ongoing hearings on the LRSDs bid for unitary status and Judge Wrights associated directives, at this time I dont anticipate that ODM will issue a report on LRSD achievement indicators. ! very much appreciate your keeping us informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall I 5013744187 UfiLKER LAW FIRM 301 P02/03 AUG 20 01 11:32 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway DrrLB Rock, Arkansas 72206 'Pelephone (501) FAX (501) 374.4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS August 20, 200 J OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, FA DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 HendiSkson Road Lmu Hock, ABKANS.s8 72210 Phone. (501) 872-3425  Fax (501) 372-8428 Email: rochdnryj^wkell.net Dr. Donald Stewart Chief Financial Officer Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Stewart: 1 am in receipt of your letter dated August 17, 2001 Would you please provide a copy of Administrative Directive KDB, who proposed the directive, when it was adopted by the Board and when it became applicable. Also inform me of anyone else who has been made to pay 25 cents a copy for multiple copies of information requested under FOIA. Please also provide to me a more thorough itemization of what you propose to charge me for copies. The 1488 copies is more than we requested when we reviewed the Friday Firm bills. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 301 P03/03 AUG 20 01 11:32 ItieUviJual^Approach tc a World i^Kjtoivlt^^' August 17,2001 Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: At your request, copies of all invoices rendered by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark for services to the Little Rock School District from January, 1998 to present are available. In accordance with die LRSD Administrative Directive KDB- Process for Making Requests for Infonnation Ender the FOIA, the charge for copying is as follows: 1,488 copies @ $ .25 each - $ 372.00 Total Due Pursuant to Administrative Directive KDB, payment is due in advance of receiving the requested copies. Upon receipt of the amount due, the copies may be picked up at the office of the Superintendent Sincerely, Donald M. Stewart Chief Financial Officer C: Clay Fendley, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark SlOWMadchatn  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.atus 501-324-2000  few: 501-324-2032 1 John W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Fax: 324-2146 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: incEenryd@swbeU.iiet August 20, 2001 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 OfflCfOf 2 J 2001 Dear Dr. James\nThis letter requests a copy of your written policy regarding minimum class sizes for elementary grades. It also requests for you to explain how double funding now works at the 90% or more black schools. Finally, this is to request that you explain whether the teacher/pupil ratios are expected to be the same in each school and if so what that ratio is. I am sending copies of this request to Mr. Fendley and Ms. Ann Marshall Upon your determining that you may communicate with me directly, please let me have a response forthwith. Si ely, JWW.-lp cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Ms. Ann Marshall 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 348 P02/02 AUG 22 01 14:17 John W. Walker, P.a. Attorney at Law Liwle Ro(x Abkanaas 72206 Telephone (601) S74-S768 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 324-2146 August 22, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENHI Pa DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HBaiaaoN Lmu Rocs. Auunsas 72210 PHONE\n(601) 372-3425  Fax (601) 372-3428 Euaol mchem7\u0026lt;l^vbUjiet Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. James: I understand that the school year is scheduled to begin on tomorrow. I met with Dr. Terrence Roberts briefly on last Wednesday. August 15, 2001 and on Thursday morning to get some idea on how the District plans to make use of his recommendations and nthAr work. I am not certain that he was aware of what use the District is to make of his services for this school year. I have not spoken with Dr. Steve Ross regarding whether his offices would be involved in implementation of Success for All programs and other initiatives that he may also have recommended. I would like to be informed about the Districts plans for their use as soon as possible. Sincerely, \u0026gt;hn W. Walker JWW:js cc\nMr .Clay Fendley 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 351 P02 RUG 23 01 09:20 J. Individual .Approach to a W'orld of^jtowled^ August 22, 2001 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker Attached, as per requested, is a copy of my resume. Yours truly. B3oonnnniiee A. Lesley, EEd.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc\nChris Heller . . Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Maikham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 * www.li3d.kl2.ar.us SOl-324-2000 T..\u0026amp;X: 501-324-2032 t 5013744187 UfiLKER LRU FIRM 351 P03 RUG 23 01 09:20 Bonnie Alexander Lesley Home Address\n232 Trelon Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-3920 Office Address\n3001 S. Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Home Telephone\n501/868-4289 Office Telephone: 501/324-2131 Home E-mail\nbalesley@.BOl.com Office E-mail: balesle@irc.lrsd.kl2.ai.us Educational Background Ed. D., Aug. 1989 Baylor University, Waco, Texas 54 Graduate Hours University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas M.A. in English, Aug. 1968 West Texas A\u0026amp;M University, Canyon, Texas B.A. in English, June 1962 With Honors University of North Texas, Denton, Texas High School Diploma, Valedictorian, May 1959 Hedley High School, Hedley, Texas Work Experience June 1998^Present Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School Distric Little Rock, Arkansas Dec. 1995March 1998 Associate Superintendent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Kansas City, Kansas June 1993Dec. 1995 Associate State Superintendent for Curriculum/Standards Delaware Department of Public Instruction Dover, Delaware Oct. 1991June 1993 Associate Superintendent for Cuiriculum/lnslruction Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas June 1986Oct. 1991 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Waco Independent School District Waco, Texas 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 351 P04 AUG 23 01 09:20 I Aug. 1981June 1986 Director of Secondary Education Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Aug. 1979Aug. 1981 Supervisor of Secondary Language Arts Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fall 1965Spring 1979 Teacher of English and Creative Writing Eastwood High School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fall 1964Spring 1965 Reading and Elementary Spanish Teacher Scotsdale Elementary School Ysleta Independent School District EI Paso, Texas Fall 1962Spring 1964 English, Mathematics, Reading, Spanish Teacher Silverton Independent School District Silverton, TexasFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H FRIDAY i I92M944) WILl I.A.M H SLTTO.N. P A HSRON M EISE.MAN. JR . p a .OF D BELL. P A JA.MES A BUTTRY. P a FREDERICK S URSERY. P A OSCAR  O.AVIS. JR P A JAMES C CLARK. JR . P A THOMAS P LEGGETT. P a lOHS OEWEV WATSON. P a PALL a BENHA.M III. P a LARRY w BURKS. P A A WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR . P A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P A f PHILLIP MALCOM. P A /AMES M SIMPSO-N. P A James m s.a.yto.n. p a } SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111. P .A DONALD H BACON. P A WiLLiA.M THOMAS Ba.KTER. P .a 9.*RRV E COPLIN. P A nil HARD 0 Taylor, p a JOSEPH a HURST. JR . p a. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P A CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A ROBERT S SHAFER. P A WILLIAM M GRIFFIN III. P A MICHAEL S MOORE. P A DIANE S MACKEY. P A Walter m ebel hi. p a. KEVIN A. CRASS. P A WILLIAM A Waddell, jr . p.a. SCOTT J. Lancaster, p a M GAYLE CORLEY. P A. ROBERT B BEACH. JR.. P.A. J LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C BAKER. JR . P A HARRY A. LICHT. P A SCOTT H TUCKER. P A GUY ALTON Wade, p.a PRICE C GARDNER. P -A TONIa P JONES. P A DAVID 0 WILSON. P A 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 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-895-2011 FAX 501-895-2147 JEPFREY'H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P A JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONaNN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.a. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH C. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH TAMARA 0. MARTIN RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M COTTON orCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782.2898 FAX 870-782-2918 VIA FAX No. 374-4187 August 23, 2001 received CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL S01-370-1SO6 FAX 501.244-5344 htlUrQltc.n*! Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 AUG 2 4 ZOO! ufHGEQF DESEMOT.mO8IS\nRe: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear John: The Joshua Intervenors always have a place on the Board agenda. I do not believe would violate any court orders by making a presentation to the Board concerning issues of you legitimate concern to the Joshua Intervenors during the time set aside on the agenda for that purpose. I do believe, however, that your actions this morning at the Instructional Resource Center violation of Judge Wrights July 29 and August 17, 2001 Orders. We are filing an appropriate motion today. were in Yours ve\nCJH/bk Christopller Heller cc: Ms. Ann Marshall aJohn W. walker, P.A, Attobnet Ar Law 1723 Broadway Litoe Bock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (BOI) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS August 23,2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKY, PjL DONNA J. McHENKY 8210 HMOtSEOK ROaO LtiTu Rock, Aixamsas 72210 PhONI: (SOI) 372.3425  F (501) 372.3428 BmaE.: mchenr7dSswbeU.net Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Heller: Do you perceive the Judges Order as requiring me to inlbim you that I intend to have a discussion with the board members today during the board meeting. Please let me hear from you by return fax. itjccrely, in W. Walker MM., JWW:Ip 62: PT cc: Ms. Ann Marshall T0, 2 any 20/c0d 89 waid mtn a3\u0026gt;nwri z.8TppiT0siEE!ED John W. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Al=3 2 4 2001 GiflGE OF JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 Hendebson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.uet Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: As you know, I have been seeking information from the Little Rock School District. You also know it is my belief that the District does not provide full or accurate information, at least to us, upon request. We have some substantial evidence of that already. Yesterday, I requested a copy of Dr. Bormie Lesleys resume or vitae. You received a copy of my request. She provided a resume, a copy of which is attached. The resume is three pages. The resume is an example of an attitude: give them something, anything will do\nbut dont give them all of what we have. Dr. Lesley surely provided to the Little Rock School District a far more extensive resume that she provided in response to our request. Perhaps, you have seen it. Surely, the Board of Directors had more than what she provided to us. I am writing this letter to enlist your offices assistance in helping to ensure that the Little Rock School District is fully responsive to citizens requests for information. If the District will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks to the Districts general inclination. Sincerely, ^ohn W. Walk / JWW:js Attachment cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mr. Chris Heller I Individual Approach to a World of knowledge August 22, 2001 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: Attached, as per requested, is a copy of my resume. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc\nChris Heller Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markiiain  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.irsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 501-324-2032 Resume Bonnie Alexander Lesley Home Address: 232 Trelon Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-3920 Ofhee Address: 3001 S. Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Home Telephone: 501/868-4289 Office Telephone: 501/324-2131 Home E-mail: baleslev@.aol.com Office E-mail: balesle@,irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Educational Background Ed. D., Aug. 1989 Baylor University, Waco, Texas 54 Graduate Hours University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas M.A. in English, Aug. 1968 West Texas A\u0026amp;M University, Canyon, Texas B.A. in English, June 1962 With Honors University of North Texas, Denton, Texas High School Diploma, Valedictorian, May 1959 Hedley High School, Hedley, Texas Work Experience June 1998^Present Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School Distric Little Rode, Arkansas Dec. 1995March 1998 Associate Superintendent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Kansas City, Kansas June 1993^Dec. 1995 Associate State Superintendent for Curriculum/Standards Delaware Department of Public Instruction Dover, Delaware Oct. 1991June 1993 Associate Superintendent for Curriculum/Instruction Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas June 1986Oct. 1991 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Waco Independent School District Waco, TexasAug. 1981June 1986 Director of Secondary Education Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Aug. 1979Aug. 1981 Supervisor of Secondary Language Arts Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fall 1965Spring 1979 Teacher of English and Creative Writing Eastwood High School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fan 1964Spring 1965 Reading and Elementary Spanish Teacher Scotsdale Elementary School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fall 1962Spring 1964 English, Mathematics, Reading, Spanish Teacher Silverton Independent School District Silverton, TexasJohn W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 24, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendebson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbeU.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSDs Motion for Contempt Dear Ms. Marshall: About five minutes before the school board meeting, Mr. James Douglas, of my office, brought me a copy of Mr. Clay Pendleys motion to cite me for contempt. I take this motion seriously and I will prepare a response to it within the required rule time. I am now in route to Forrest City, Arkansas for a 2:00 p.m. hearing. as I dictate this letter. I am sending it to you that you may inform the Court that 1 intend to controvert the pleading. so Let me say that the facts are distorted. The facts regarding my visit to the IRC are as follows: 1)1 never saw or spoke with Dr. Bonnie Lesley during that visit. 2) I informed Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesleys secretary, that I had not received the copy of the requested vitae of Dr. Lesley. She got me another copy and I asked if this was all of it, commenting that surely there was more. I also asked regarding the Board meeting scheduled for that night whether there was any information which backed up the proposed items under the instructional division which were on the 6:00 p.m. agenda. 3) I spoke to several staff members with a greeting- nothing more. I spoke to a lady that I thought was a Ms. Dillingham who was entering the building and then, believing I was mistaken, asked her whether she was Ms. Dillingham, nothing else was said. 4) In the building, I went into an office of a former client whose child was involved in the grade changing episode at Hall High School. No one was in the room. As I touched nothing, saw no one and within seconds after learning that no one was in the room, I left the room. As I was leaving the room, Ms. Anita Gilliam entered the room and asked if she could help me. I told her no and that if I needed her help I would ask her. Ms. Springer indicates that she did speak to Ms. Gilliam and that while doing so Dr. Lesley came out of her and spoke to Ms. Springer. Ms. Springer did not ask Dr. Lesley anythin! Dr. Lesley volunteered that she did not have any information to supplement the agenda. Ms Springer indicated to Dr. Lesley to that she did not ^g- understand what Dr. Lesley was saying in her volunteered statement and she asked her to clarify it. Dr. Lesley simply indicated that she may have something and would check into the matter. Nothing else happened. 5. Neither Ms. Springer nor I sought to speak with Dr. Lesley or any other District agent regarding any matter before the court. I went to the Board and made a statement wherein I implored the Board to fairly address and resolve the issues that separate us. Before doing that, I wrote Mr. Chris Heller a letter asking, notwithstanding that we have a place on the agenda, if he any problem with my talking to the Board. I sat next to Chris during the Board meeting. The motion is much to do about nothing because I did nothing to offend the letter or spirit of the courts order. dncerely, Dictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris HellerMtuBVEj AUG 2 7 2001 Responses to John Walkers Objections to LRSDs Unitary Status p. 41st paragraph on Incentive Schools Mr. Walker states that we believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the districts past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. That belief is simply not grounded in fact. When the District submitted its proposal to the National Science Foundation in 1998 to fund the implementation of new K-12 mathematics and science curriculum, it made a commitment to implement one researchbased curriculum in those areas for all schools, and by implication, it eliminated the proliferation of individual school programs and individual school supplementary programs which caused an inequitable opportunity to learn and which caused many problems for students who move from school to school. Mobile students were having problems not only in being exposed to the total curriculum, but also in understanding the many approaches that individual schools took to teaching the content and skills. The District now has one mathematics and one science curriculum that all schools must use. We have done everything we could to eliminate supplemental programs that conflict with the District curricula, rather than just reinforce it. (See p. 119 in the Interim Compliance Report and p. 115 of the Compliance Report.) The same can be said for the literacy curriculum. When the District proposed its PreK-3 Literacy Plan in spring 1999, it included in its analysis a list of all the various literacy programs used in schools throughout the Districtmany which conflicted radically with others in use in the same school. On p. 15 of the plan, we stated: . . . there is in several schools a proliferation of disparate \"programs, \" and both reviews of those lists and interviews with the principal and teachers of those schools reveal many times a lack of understanding of how the many programs fit together (lack of coherence) and/or what problems they are mtended to solve (lack of alignment). The plan then went on to analyze and delineate the various technology programs in use and as many as eight supplemental reading/language arts programs in use, in addition to the many programs taking the place of a central curriculum. Lists and definitions of many of those programs are on pp. 16-20. In the section on proposed new program components, we wrote the following (p. 33): Program Abandonment. In order for the District and each school to be successful in the implementation of these program components, many former programs and practices must be abaridoned. The mobility of our students requires us to be consistent in our curriculum and instruction. The importance of coherence requires us to have a common research and theory base for the program components. Also, limitations on teacher time and energy require us to abandon 1some old programs and practices to make room for the new. Finally, in order to fund these new program components, both District budgets and Title I budgets must be reallocated to fund the teacher development, new teaching materials, and interventions now required. Clearly, then, the abandonment of the proliferation of numerous programs was built into the new plan. We have monitored schools compliance with this requirement through classroom observations, through the review of all Title I purchases, and through discussions with principals and teachers so that they understand the importance of this mandate. The Division of School Services monitors, as well, through their supervision of the writing and implementation of School Improvement Plans. Mr. Walker further states in that same paragraph that Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Again, this statemenfis blatantly not true, as is evidenced by the most recent report of the results of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), presented to the Board of Education on June 28, 2001. Incentive schools performed very well both in 1999-2000 and in 2000-2001 on the DRA. The Incentive Schools are, in general, improving. With the exception of Mitchell and Rightsell at grade 1, a majority of the students are performing at or above the readiness level. Kindergarten LRSD Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 199S-200Q 72.2 64.3 90.6. 92.1 75.8 40.8 2000-2001: 30.7 58.6 92.3 80.5 76.2 66.1 Change 8.5 -5.7 1.7 -11.6 0.4 25.3 Mitchell scored higher than the District average of 80.7, and Rightsell was behind, even after their drop in performance in 2000-01, only 0.2. Stephens grew three times as much as the District as a whole. Grade 1 LRSD Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 53.6 57.6 25.0 35.7 76.3 23.5 2080-2001 63.8 58.9 25.0 41.7 65.2 51.0 10.2 1.3 0.0 6.0 -11.1 27.5 Rockefeller scored higher than the District average of 63.8. Stephens grew almost three times as much as the District as a whole. 2Grade 2 LRSD Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1.999-2000 67.5 81.2 48.6 94.7 71.4 31.3 75.4 83.6 50.0 70.5 84.2 61.4 Change 7.9 2.4 1.4 -24.2 12.8 30.1 Both Franklin and Rockefeller both scored higher than the District average of 75.4. Rockefeller grew more than the District, and Stephens grew more than four times as much as the District as a whole. The Grade 4 Benchmark scores are another measure of the progress of the Incentive Schools. J Grade 4 Literacy State BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced School LRSD Franklin MitcheU RightseU_______ Rockefeller Garland/Stephens 1998-99 32 16 13 41 54 15 1999-2000 42 31 13 41 60 13 10 15 0 0 6 -2 Rockefeller scored 18 points above the District average of 42 percent. Franklin grew 15 points to the Districts growth of 10 points. From other measures we anticipate a good improvement at Stephens in 2001 over the previous Garland scores. Grade 4 Mathematics State BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced School LRSD Franklin Mitchell RightseU_______ Rockefeller Garland/Stephens 1998-99 22 2 4 12 36 4 1999-2000 30 10 9 41 34 0 Change 8 8 5 29 -2 -4 Both Rightsell and Rockefeller scored above the District average of 30. Franklin improved the same number of points as the District, and Rightsells growth greatly exceeded that of the District. Again, improvement will likely occur at Stephens on the 2001 measures, given other data. The District also looked specifically at the results of the DRA in the seventeen schools where there are 75 percent or more of the students eligible for the fi-ee/reduced lunch program. Again, the results are very encouraging: There are seventeen (49 percent) elementary schools in the District where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for fi'ee/reduced lunch. Many of these schools improved i 3dramatically in spring 2001 (those that are bolded in the Change column.) and/or some are performing in the highest range of scores (80 percent or higher are bolded in the 2000-01 column). Kindergarten LRSD____________ Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)______ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) i MitcheU (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%) RightseU (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) t999\u0026gt;200ft 72.2 21.6 64.3 40.8 56.1 51.1 69.2 56.4 66.7 61.0 90.6 56.4 85.1 92.1 77.4 46.8 68.3 2000-2001 80.7 50.0 58.6 66.1 70.9 94.0 46.2 82.5 80,0 73.3 92,3 73.7 87.7 80.5 77.1 61.1 75.6 Change 8.5 28.4 -5.7 25.3 14.8 42.9 -23.0 26.1 13.3 12.3 1.7 17.3 2.6 -11.6 -0.3 14.3 7.3 ______ The District average for kindergarten was 80.7 percent in 2000-2001. The following high-poverty schools, therefore, performed at a higher level than the District average: Baseline, Cloverdale, Mitchell, and Geyer Springs. In addition, both Wilson and Rightsell had more than 80 percent of their students performing at the readiness level. Baseline was the second highest performing school in the District at the kindergarten level in 2000-01. Rightsell was in third place in 1999-2000. Grade 1 LRSD____________ Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)______ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) MitcheU (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%) Rightsell (82%) Meadowclrff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) _______516_ 5.9 57.6 23.5 26.8 29.6 84.2 28.4 _______82,9_ 50.8 25.0 _______24.7 _______46,8_ 35.7 70.0 22.0 62.5 2000-200J 63.8 26.5 589 51.0 51.2 70.8 61.5 33.9 53.8 60.5 25.0 66.6 38.6 41.7 66.6 66.6 72.7 iEhangc 10.2 20.6 1.3 27.5 24.4 41.2 -22.7 5.5 -29.1 9.7 0.0 41.9 -8.2 6.0 -3.4 44.6 10.2 _____ 4The District average for Grade 1 was 63.8 percent in 2000-2001. The following high- poverty schools, therefore, performed at a higher level than the District average: Baseline, Watson, Meadowcliff, Wakefield, and Fair Park. In addition, both Mabelvale and Woodruff had more than 60 percent of their students performing at the readiness level. Wilson ranked third in the District at grade 1 in 1999-2000. Grade 2 LRSD____________ Badgett (94%) Frankhn (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%). Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%)  Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%) Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) t99-2000 67.5 11.8 81.2 31.3 38.6 47.1 78.3 57.9 60.4 43.4 48.6 54.4 72.5 94.7 57.9 40.0 62.9 2000-2001 75.4 42,9 83.6 61.4 52.1 60.5 86,5 45.1 61.4 63.0 50.0 51.2 66.0 70.5 75.0 54.4 67.7 7.9 31,1 2.4 30.1 13.5 13.4 8.2 -12.8 1.0 19.6 1.4 -3.2 -6.5 -24.2 17.1 14.4 4.8 The District average for Grade 2 was 75.4 percent in 2000-2001. The following high- poverty schools, therefore, performed at a higher level than the District average: Franklin and Woodruff. In addition. Rightsell had more than 70 percent of their students performing at the readiness level. Rightsell ranked first in the District at grade 2 in 1999-2000. The State Benchmark scores are also useful in reviewing the progress of the seventeen high-poverty schools: Grade 4 Literacy State BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced LRSD_________________ Badgett (94%)__________ Franklin (90%)_________ Stephens (90%) (Garland) Chicot (87%)___________ Baseline (86%)_________ Woodruff (86%)________ Cloverdale (85%)_______ Wilson (85%)__________ Mabelvale (85%)_______ Mitchell (84%)_________ Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%) Rightsell (82%) 1999-2000 32 12 16 15 11 22 6 13 19 10 13 11 27 41 2000-2001 42 27 31 13 11 12 35 17 26 22 14 30 30 41 ______Change___ 10 15 15 -2 0 -10 29 4 7 12 1 19 3 0 5Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) 17 15 20 33 12 21 16 -3 1 Rightsell scored just one point below the District average of 42. Badgett, Franklin^ Woodruff, Mabelvale, Watson, and Meadowcliff all grew at a higher rate than the District as a whole at 10 points. Woodruff had three times that amount of growth, and Watson almost doubled it. Grade 4 Mathematics State BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced Badgett (94%)_________ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) (Garland) Chicot (87%)__________ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%)__________ Mabelvale (85%)_______ Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)__________ Geyer Springs (83%) RightseU (82%)_________ Meadowcliff (81%)_____ Wakefield (80%)________ Fair Park (78%) 1999-2000 22 0 2 4 10 11 12 4 6 0 4 6 12 12 0 6 10 2000-2001 30 14 10 0 6 12 24 10 16 22 9 8 7 41 28 3 0 Change 8 14 8 -4 -4 1 12 3 10 22 5 2 -5 29 28 -3 -10 Again, Rightsell scored above the District average of 30, with Meadowcliff close behind at 28. Badgett, Franklin, Woodruff, Wilson, Mabelvale, Rightsell, and Meadowcliff all grew at a higher rate than the District at 8 points. Rightsell and Meadowcliff grew more than three times the District growth, and Mabelvale grew almost three times as much. Clearly, therefore, these early measures of performance in these seventeen schools indicate the potential of students in high poverty schools and the potential of the Little Rock School District in significantly narrowing, if not totally eliminating, the achievement gap. p. 5, paragraph Mr. Walker states that Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. We agree with that, but we know that it is impossible to eliminate the achievement gaps in two years after implementation of new programs, policies, and procedures, especially at the secondary level. Some of our programs, in fact, have seen only one full year of implementation at the end of 2000-01 since it was impossible to train every elementary teacher in one year (1999-2000) to implement three entirely new curriculaEnglish language arts, mathematics, and science, with accompanying new instructional strategies, new instructional materials, and 6new assessments. No district or school has ever been able to do that and to do so in a manner to close the achievement gap in one year. We are making progress, and the data show that. We have in good faith reported all available data, even when they do not show gains. What we intended to do was show a pattern of improvement, and we feel confident that the pattern is evident, especially at the elementary level. Mr. Walker further states that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. He mistakenly sees evaluation as an event or the publication of a formal paper. Part of what we are about is being data-driven in our decision making, using data on an ongoing basis to determine where we are and what our next steps should be. Our central office staff look at data continuously, whenever new information is available\nour cabinet receives quarterly reports on all available data\nour principals rarely have a meeting without reviewing data\nour Campus Leadership Teams J have received training in how to collect, review, analyze, and use data for decisionmaking and planning\nand our teachers are being trained in using data. All these actions are a form of program evaluation, and we do that continuously. The programs have been evaluated in our analysis presented in the Interim Compliance Report (pp. 51-69) and the Compliance Report (p. 148). Dr. Steve Ross has worked closely with PRE in putting into place a formal evaluation system. We have accreditation reports\nevaluation reports on our grant-funded projects\naudits of our processes for all kinds of programs\nand reports to the Board of Education. These too are forms of program evaluation. These evaluations are done by professionally competent staff\nthey are reviewed and discussed by professionally competent staff\nand they are used in decision-making by professionally competent staff on an ongoing basis. Mr. Walker is also reminded that these processes, sometimes called formative evaluation, are thoroughly outlined and described in the Interim Compliance Report of March 2000, pp. 51-69. We see the formal, or summative, evaluation of the elementary literary, the k- 12 mathematics and science programs, and the middle school implementation as long- range evaluation projects (three or more years), with, of course, frequent formative evaluations occurring on an ongoing basis. p. 7, 1st paragraph Mr. Walker errs when he states that the consultants have not been used to address specific needs of African American students. In the many conversations and meetings in which we have been engaged with Dr. Roberts, especially, and in the training and advice that he provides us on an ongoing basis, the needs of African American students were paramount. When he reviewed proposed policies and regulations with us, he advised us as to their likely impact on African American students. When he reviewed proposals for new programs, he advised on their likely impact on African American students. He spent a great deal of time advising us on the plan to increase enrollment of African American students in advanced classes. Dr. Roberts specific suggestions on this issue were, in fact, delineated on p. 33 of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report. We consulted him when we wrote grant proposals and when we began the 7implementation of those projects. He advised us in the restructuring of the parent program, especially in how it might impact African American parents. And he was especially concerned about the climate in our schools as it affects African American students when he proposed to us the Learning to Cope with Differences training program. (See pp. 163-165 in the March 2001 Compliance Report.) To suggest that Dr. Roberts was not consulted about the needs of African American students is not only to insult the District staff but to insult, as well. Dr. Roberts. Mr. Walker further states that Despite its use of Roberts and Ross and submits (sic) that the District has not devised any remedies to any problems concerning desegregation racial discrimination which adversely affects African American students. This or statement is also outrageous, given all the enormous efforts in the past, as well as in the last three years, to determine how to ensure equity and to move forward in implementing the plans. Mr. Walker apparently has a standard that is beyond what any community or any school district or any school in America has met. The remedies are delineated in great detail in both the Interim and the final Compliance Reports\nthey were implemented in good faith, using the best advice and resources that we had available\nand they are showing a pattern of positive results. p. 15, paragraph Mr. Walker beats his drum again about the alleged misdeeds at Hall High with respect to altering grade weights of white students. He ignores the considerable efforts of the District s administration and Board of Education in the last two years to ensure that there are clear and written rules and regulations established so that if an individual does abuse the grading system, he or she can be held accountable. The Board of Education approved in September 1999 a new policy IKC and reviewed in October 1999 new administrative regulations on how to calculate the grade-point average and class rank. (See pp. 18 and 20 in the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report and p. 30 in the March 2001 Compliance Report.) These rules provide great detail on which grades are to be used in calculating the grade-point average, which grades are not to be counted, how grade weights are to be determined, the grading scale, and other details about determining honor graduates. Every student received a copy of these rules in the 2001 -02 High School Student/Parent Handbook on Graduation Requirements and Course Selection (pp. 14-17). Every counselor, registrar, and principal received a copy of the High School Curriculum Catalog for 2001-02, and copies of those rules appeared on pp. 27-31. Numerous meetings have been conducted with counselors, registrars, and high school principals about these rules and the Districts expectations that they be observed. p. 1, Section 2.3 Mr. Walker states that the schools in the southwest are becoming one race and grossly inferior while the schools in Pulaski Heights area and west Little Rock are becoming disproportionately white and superior. Mr. Walker may believe that disproportionately African American schools are necessarily inferior to disproportionately white schools, but the officials of the Little Rock School District do not. We have worked very hard while implementing this plan to ensure that the schools in southwest Little Rock receive 1 8the attention and resources that they deserve. Some examples follow. Southwest schools are the target population for the funds in the two 21^ Learning Community grant projects that have been funded in the last three yearsmore than $2 million. Thousands of hours of work and thousands of dollars were spent in the last year or so in planning the magnet school grant proposal that was recently awarded for the southwest Little Rock high schools and middle schools. (See p. 67 of the Interim Compliance Report and pp. 33-34, 64-65 and p. 144 of the Compliance Report.) These new funds, combined with funds from the District and from the millage increase, will add many new resources to the new magnets in the next three years, including many curriculum/instruction enhancements. Changes have occurred in the staffing of those schools. We placed three additional teachers at Chicot from the federal governments class-size reduction funds. Both Dodd and Watson applied for and received comprehensive school reform grants. Mabelvale Elementary School was designated as one of the three Extended Year Education (EYE) schools. We can look at the DRA results again as evidence that the southwest elementary schools are not grossly inferior, as Mr. Walker alleges. Kindergarten School________ LRSD_______ Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd_________ Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 1999^000 72.2 51.1 56.1 56.4 86.5 61.0 77.4 90.4 46.8 56.4 2000-2001 80.7 94.0 70.9 82.5 80.0 73.3 77.1 90.6 61.1 73.7 Change 8.5 42.9 14.8 26.1 -6.5 12.3 -0.3 0.2 14.3 17.3 Three of the nine schools performed above the District average at the kindergarten level. Another was behind only 0.7. All of the nine schools have a majority of the students performing at the readiness level, and eight of the nine have at least 70 percent at the readiness level. Six of the nine schools improved more than the District as a whole. Grade 1 School LRSD Baseline Chicot____ Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 1999-2U0U 2000-2001 53.6 29.6 26.8 28.4 58.3 50.8 70.0 67.7 22.0 24.7 63.8 70.8 51.2 33.9 73.5 60.5 66.6 69.6 66.6 66.6 Change 10.2 41.2 24.4 5.5 15.2 9.7 -3.4 1.9 44.6 - 41.9 9At the grade 1 level, seven of the nine schools performed above the District average. Eight of the nine schools have the majority of their students performing at or above the readiness level. Five of the nine schools improved more than the District as a whole, three of them more than 40 percentage points and another more than 20. Grade 2 School LRSD Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale MeadowcUff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 1999-2000 67.5 47.1 38.6 57.9 51.7 43.4 57.9 87.2 40.0 54.4 2090-1001  75.4 60.5 52.1 45.1 82.8 63.0 75.0 90.5 54.4 51.2 Change 7.9 13.4 13.5 -12.8 31.1 19.6 17.1 3.3 14.4 -3.2 At the grade 2 level, two of the nine schools performed above the District average. Nother school was less than one point behind. Eight of the nine schools had a majority of their students performing at or above the readiness level. Six of the nine schools improved more than the District as a whole, one by more than 30 points. We can also see improvement occurring generally in the SAT9 data. s Total Reading School LRSD_________ Baseline_______ Chicot Cloverdale Dodd_________ Mabelvale_____ Meadowchff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson Grade 5 1997-98 27 15 16 29 26 31 37 51 24 30 1998-99 .40 24 19 48 35 22 21 54 22 27 1990-00 37 18 16 21 30 21 27 40 18 22 42 27 21 23 42 23 47 51 19 33 +5 +12 +5 -6 +16 -8 +10 0 -5 +3 Three schools perform the same as or higher than the District average on the grade 5 Total Reading test. Five of the nine schools improved over the three years, three of them by more than 10 percentile points. The new Effective Literacy curriculum was not implemented fully in grade 5 until fall 2000, so the SAT9 scores caimot measure as yet the effectiveness of new curriculum, professional development, materials, and assessments. Total MathematicsGrade 5 School LRSD Baseline Chicot  i997-9\u0026amp; 30 16 13 36 14 16 30 13 13 31 22 14 Change +1 +6 +1 10 I ICloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 35 22 22 29 45 19 28 56 25 21 12 59 20 28 29 28 18 25 30 14 17 38 33 17 34 49 13 21 +3 +11 -5 +5 +4 -6 -1 Four of the nine schools perform higher than the District average. Five of the nine improved more than the District as a whole. It is important to know in analyzing the mathematics data that the grade 5 new mathematics curriculum was not implemented until fall 1999. Therefore, the fall 2000 scores reflect only one year of implementation, and all teachers were not fully trained when school began in fall 1999. In addition, we know that the SAT9 is not well aligned with the states mathematics curriculum framework, which is the basis for the Districts new mathematics curriculum. The States Benchmark examinations at grade 4 also show improvement in many of the southwest schools. Grade 4 Literacy BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced School LRSD Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 1998^9 32 22 11 13 35 10 17 32 ' 15 11 1999-2000- 42 12 11 17 24 22 33 51 12 30 Change 10 -10 0 4 -11 12 16 19 -3 19 Again, the reader must remember that the spring 2000 scores do not reflect even one full year of implementation of the new grade 4 Effective Literacy curriculum. Some teachers were not trained at the beginmng of the school year, although all teachers had the training that occurred during preschool inservice in fall 1999. Otter Creek scored higher than the District average. Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Watson all improved more than the District as a whole. Grade 4 Mathematics BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced School LRSD Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield 1998-99 22 11 10 4 19 0 0 17 6 1999-2060 30 12 6 10 27 22 28 57 3 Change 8 1 -4 6 8 22 28 40 -3 11Cloverdale Dodd______ Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 35 22 22 29 45 19 28 56 25 21 12 59 20 28 29 28 18 25 30 14 17 I Four of the nine schools perform higher than the District 38 33 17 34 49 13 21 +3 +11 -5 +5 +4 -6 -7 average. Five of the nine  J .   - w* J. 1V C Vi Lllv xllllC T the District as a whole. It is important to know in analyzing the  grade 5 new mathematics curriculum was not impkmited an J h Therefore the fall 2000 scores reflect only one year of implementation, and all teachers were not fully trained when school began in fall 1999. In addition know that the SAT9 is not well aliened thp statpc ____- v was not implemented is not well aligned with the states mathematics curriculum framework, which is the basis for the Districts new mathematics curriculum. } The States Benchmark examinations southwest schools. we at grade 4 also show improvement in many of the ^rade 4 Literacy BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced T Baseline Chicot_____ Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 32 22 11 13 35 10 17 32 15 11 42 12 11 17 24 22 33 51 12 30 .. Change 10 -10 0 4 -11 12 16 19 -3 19 I I I J I i I I Again the reader must remember that the spring 2000 scores do not reflect even one full year of implementation of the new grade 4 Effective Literacy curriculum Some teachers \" beginning of the school year, although all teachers had the training at occurred during preschool inservice in fall 1999. Otter Creek scored higher than the^ P-ed improved more ^rade 4 Mathematics Benchmark-Percent Proficient and Adv^nrpH :-------------Z I  ^200577--------- LKoU 77 ........... ' -------- Baseline Chicot_____ Cloverdale Dodd______ Mabelvale MeadowclifF Otter Creek Wakefield 22 11 10 4 19 0 0 17 6 I I 30 12 6 10 27 22 28 57 3 Change 8 1 6 8 22 28 40 -3 I I I 11 I I I I iI Watson I 6 8 2 The new grade 4 mathematics curriculum was not implemented until fall 1999, and not every teacher was fully trained when school began in fall 1999. The spring 2001 scores will be a better indicator of the programs effectiveness since every student will have experienced one full year of the new program. Otter Creek scored above the District average. Dodd, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, and Otter Creek all grew as much as or more than the District as a whole, with Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, and Otter Creek making dramatic gains. Grade 7 Reading School LRSD Cloverdale Mabelvale 1997-98 34 19 33 1998-99 38 22 25 40 21 33 39 22 32 Qiaitge +5 +3 -1 1 The new grades 6-8 ReadingAVriting Workshop was implemented in fall 1999, but not all the teachers were trained when school began in fall 1999. The fall 2000 scores, therefore, reflect less than one year of implementation of the new curriculum. Grade 7 Mathematics School LRSD Cloverdale Mabelvale 1997-98 33 24 31 1998-99 33 21 24 1999-00 39 21 26 2000411 32 17 25 Change -1 -7 -6 The new grade mathematics curriculum was implemented in fall 1999, so the fall 2000 scores reflect at most a year of implementation, although some teachers were not fully trained until after the school year began. Also, of all the subject areas tested, the SAT9 is probably least aligned with the states curriculum framework for mathematics. Grade 10 Reading School, LRSD Fair McClellan 1997-98 37 24 23 1998-99 36 14 25 1999-01) 33 21 21 37 25 20 _0_______ +1______ -3 The new English I Workshop was not implemented until fall 2000, so we could not expect that the high school performance would change in the fall 2000 scores. Grade 10 Mathematics School LRSD Fair McClellan 1997-98 43 35 31 1998-99 43 25 35 t999-nP 42 32 30 2000-01 46 37 33 _____Change +3 +2 +2 The gains in mathematics in fall 2000 reflect the new physics requirement for all freshmen, as well as the emphasis on standards in Algebra I. 12These data do not paint a portrait of grossly inferior schools. They paint a picture of improvement, of confidence, of anticipation of continued improvement. p. 18, Section 2.4 Mr, Walker states that the 504 program is replete with difficulties and programs which tend to impact African American students in a disparate way. The 504 program is, of course, very difficult to administer since the law provides for such broad definitions of disability and provides no funding. In spite of difficulties, however, the District has designated a 504 coordinator at the district level and provides training fi-equently for school-level staff We have a 504 Handbook, with articulated procedures that the schools are to observe. Mr. Walker presented no evidence that the administration of the program discriminates against African American students. If he knows of such discrimination, he has the burden of providing us with the specific complaint so that we may investigate. He further states in that same paragraph that African American male and female students are over identified. Ti And they are to some degree, but not when issues of poverty are taken into consideration. The alternative is to withhold services and support from students who badly need those services and support. If we did that, especially if we denied programs and services to eligible African American children simply because we did not want to over identify, then Mr. Walker would be alleging that we were discriminating against African American children, and we would be. Little Rock has a lower percentage of special education students identified than we normally find in urban school districts. Another point made in the Compliance Report is that many Non-Black special education students attend private schools (see p. 22 of the March 2001 Compliance Report). We are not aware that any African American special education students do so. p. 21. Section 2.6 Mr. Walker states that The administration of the advanced placement program gives rise to concerns that white students are being placed more into AP courses in earlier points in their lives and that in effect when one views the participation of academic activities one will find that those are largely participated in by white students. Mr. Walker has ignored the evidence that has been in effect for two years that the District does not place anyone in AP courses. It is outrageous even to suggest that we are at work to devise a strategy of enrolling white students earlier than African American students to give them an advantage. It just does not work that way. Rather, we have opened the enrollment into these courses to any student who wishes to take the courses, and this was done to ensure that no African American child who wanted to take these courses could be left out due to previous test scores or low gradesor due to anyones low expectations for African American students. The 2001-2002 High School Curriculum Catalog (pp. 53-55) provides guidelines to schools for the enrollment of students into Pre-AP and AP courses. The following language occurs in bold type on p 53: 13Schools are encouraged to allow open admission to all Pre-AP and AP courses and then to require attendance, good behavior, and acceptable performance (including effort, not just a minimum grade) to stay in the course, rather than to deny admission to any motivated student who wishes to try a more challenging curriculum. On that same page we have also quoted the sections from the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that relate to advanced courses to emphasize the importance of these actions to all staff involved in registered students into courses. Numerous efforts were employed to enroll more African American students into advanced courses. Those are listed_on p. 36 of the March 2001 Compliance Report. They are repeated here for emphasis:  Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment\n Added several new AP courses to curriculum in 1999-2000 and again in 2000-01,  Authorized all AP courses to be available in all five high schools.  Included enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators\n Changed regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a C in the previous course\n Increased awareness of goals through the Revised Plan, the National Science Foundation Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development for teachers, counselors, and principals\n Published in the curriculum catalogs the guidelines for ensuring access of students to the AP and Pre-AP courses, including those with disabilities, those identified as 504, ESL students, and those who are non-traditional students\n Ensured equal access to the professional development courses for teachers by advancing the funds so that teacher could participate in the AP and Pre- AP conferences and Institute, thereby ensuring more equity for students at all schools\n Conducted parent night meetings at secondary schools to provide information to parents about AP and Pre-AP programs, the importance of enrollment in courses, and the need for parental support in keeping students in courses\nand  Increased communication with parents through direct conferences and through the High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements. One of the most powerful strategies is that we included percents of African American students enrolled in advanced courses as one of the indicators in the Quality Index (see p. 62 in the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report for the list of middle school indicators and p. 64 for the list of high school indicators). All indicators are disaggregated by race in our reports. 14I Further, we went directly to the students in the 2001-02 High School Student/Parent Handbook on Graduation Requirements and Course Selections (p. 1) in an appeal for students (and or through their parents) to take the most challenging courses possible: . . Students who complete high school knowing something will earn more every year of your lives than students who drop out or who do not acquire marketable skills. Students who complete high school with an understanding of algebra and geometry tend to go to college and to complete college, regardless of race or wealth. Students who take the Recommended Curriculum (as opposed to the minimum requirements) perform better on the ACT (or SAT) than students who just take regular courses. Students who take Advanced Placement courses do better in college, even if they do not earn college credit on the exams, than students who did not take Advanced Placement courses. Students who read a lot and who read different kinds of books learn more and perform better on all kinds of tests than students who only read what is required from textbooks. Students who use technology effectively to learn and communicate are much more competitive in all areas of adult life than those who do not. Every student received a copy of this handbook. p. 22. Section 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3 Mr. Walker states that There has been no assessment of the training programs for teachers and counselors for each of the last three years in order to assist them in identifying and encouraging African American students participation in honors, enriched, and advanced placement courses. He has absolutely no evidence of that. The staff began this training program with a comprehensive needs assessment to determine the training of each individual teacher\nwe made sure that they all received information and support to attend the College Board training\nwe have emphasized the new procedures and the importance of opening courses to all interested students\nwe have provided technical assistance in how to teach diverse classes\nwe have carefully tracked teacher participation\nand we have conducted informal evaluations of each session conducted by District staff Mr. Walker can see that we have documented our work on pp. 36-38 of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report and on pp. 31-35 of the March 2001 Compliance Report. The College Board evaluates their sessions. The most impressive finding of our ongoing assessment of our work is that more and more teachers are being trained, and more and more African American students are enrolling in advanced courses at every level in every school, and more and more students are taking the Advanced Placement examinations, and more and more African American students are taking the ACT. Those are the results that we intended. p. 22, 2\"^ paragraph Mr. Walker states that These sections demonstrate that programs are beginning to be implemented for the first time in 2001 and afterwards. These programs are 3 years late, with no evaluation criteria or component and are rife with problems, and no track record! 15We find it incredible that Mr. Walker would make such a statement. The Interim Compliance Report and the Compliance Report document a myriad of efforts to improve the enrollment of African American students in advanced courses, and those efforts began in fall 1998 and will continue, of course, into 2001 and into the future. But to say that nothing will be implemented until 2001 is blatantly untrue! In fact, we do not find anywhere where we said anything about 2001 implementation. The evaluation criteria were spelled out in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: improvements in the participation and success of African American students in advanced courses. The data that we presented, along with comprehensive analyses, are clear evidence that we are evaluating our work on an ongoing basis and that we are using the data to determine next steps. We demonstrated that we put a strong emphasis on professional development for teachers and that they participated. We demonstrated that our efforts have resulted in higher enrollments of African Americans in AP courses, in high school Pre-AP courses, and in middle school Pre-AP courses. We demonstrated that our efforts are resulting in more students taking the Advanced Placement examinations. We demonstrated that our efforts are resulting in more African American students taking the ACT. We demonstrated that African American scores on the ACT improved in some areas, even as their numbers dramatically increasedsomething rare. Thats our track record! It is surprising that Mr. Walker would condemn these dramatically important achievements. Mr. Walker stated that the board is establishing different graduation seals, using standards that are arbitrary and which particularly favor white students. He ftirther states that Joshua is completed opposed to a system where Black children are not taught on the same basis as white children-and then have that lack of teaching rubbed in their faces at graduation when they are denied honors.  It is once again disappointing to see Mr. Walker have such low expectations of African American students. The research literature is full of evidence that high expectations and standards are essential for school improvement, for the improvement of the academic achievement of all students, including those who are African American, and, perhaps, especially for them. We know with certainty that when standards are high, more and more students will work harder to achieve those standards, and we do not believe for one instance that only white children have that motivation. The new policy on designating honors makes the Honors diploma seal meaningful and provides a powerful incentive for all students seeking that designation to take a minimum number of challenging courses, not just to shoot for a 3.5 grade-point average by taking the schools easiest courses. Students are required to do three things to earn the Honors seal. They must complete the Recommended Curriculum, not the minimum requirements. They must include in the Recommended Curriculum at least eight advanced courses (Pre-AP, AP, and/or University Studies courses). And they must 3.5 grade-point average. The old policy simply required a 3.5 on any courses the student earn a took. Given the hundreds of African American students taking Pre-AP courses, there is 16 1 Jcertainly NO evidence that the District is either providing them a different and inferior education\nnor are we making it impossible for them to earn the Honors seal. We wrote that policy, along with others that require more of the Districts students in terms of courses they take, to make sure that it is adults who are making decisions about what the students need. It was just too easy under former policies for students to choose the easiest route to graduation, some taking the minimum number of courses, some never taking high school level mathematics or science courses, some never taking the college preparatory curriculum even though entirely able to do so, and some never taking advanced courses, again when they were entirely able to do so. We saw the requirement of eight advanced courses for the Honors seal as a powerful incentive to students to study hard, to earn something meaningful, to learn more on their way to a diploma. We know that when parents with means are shopping for a school they look for a school where virtually all the students are performing at the highest levels. Private schools tout those high percentages in their marketing strategies. For some reason, there are those, and Mr. Walker seems to be one of them, who believe that public schools are just fine with minimum numbers of students achieving at high levels. Little Rocks high schools will never be what we need for them to be until all students, or virtually all of them, are taking the kinds of courses and achieving at high levels in them, that we have specified for the Honors diploma. In fact, if Mr. Walker is really concerned that so few African American students qualify for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship, then he should be the strongest advocate in the city for African American students taking the courses that prepare students well to score the required 19 on the ACT. Students who do not take the Recommended Curriculum do not even complete the required number of courses specified for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarships. It is highly disappointing that Mr. Walker would attempt to deter the District from improving its high school performance by insisting that African American students cannot be successful in meeting the standards established in the Boards policies. Mr. Walker writes that Joshua has general concerns about those programs and activities that are set forth on pages 32-35. Those pages list the training provided to AP and Pre- AP teachers\ndocument new AP courses added to the curriculum in 2000-01 and both AP and Pre-AP courses to be added in 2001-02\ndocument the development of the new middle school language arts Pre-AP curriculum\ndescribe the new high school language arts courses in English I and U\nand describe teacher and counselor training provided. Those kinds of activities are absolutely essential for the quality implementation of this section of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Mr. Walker makes another untrue statement when we says that he notes here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active ligitation. The following information is from the College Board, the organization responsible for the selection of National Merit Finalists: (9/ the 1.2 million entrants, some 50,000 with the highest PSAT/NMSQT^ Selection Index scores (verbal + math + writing skills scores) 17 will qualify for Merit Program recognition. In early September, about 16,000 students or approximately a third of the 50,000 high scorers, will be notified that they have qualified as Semifinalists. In February, Semifinalists who meet academic and all other requirements will be notified that they have advanced to Finalist standing. Beginning in March, NMSC will notify approximately 7,900 Finalists that they have been selected to receive Merit Scholarship^ awards.  The information 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 all of the data for those years), as recently as four years ago Salonica Gray, an African American female senior at Central, was a National Merit Finalist. p. 23 Mr. Walker writes that The District presents a chart to show African American student enrollment is increasing in advanced placement courses, p. 38. Joshua observes that there is no real change. Again, Mr. Walker is totally misrepresenting the facts. Our job was to increase African American participation in Advanced Placement courses. The plan language follows: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses, and the gifted and talented program. When we designed and implemented those new programs, policies, and procedures to promote participation, when we opened up the enrollment in these courses, and when we made more of the courses available at every high school, more students of both African American and white races responded, and they enrolled. Nowhere in the plan did we ever make a commitment to suppressing white enrollment or achievement. We pledged to promote higher levels of participation among African American students, and we not only did that in the short term, but we also created a pipeline, beginning in grade 6, that will ensure steadily increasing numbersand PERCENTAGES-of African American students taking those advanced courses each year. The careful and comprehensive analysis of the data in all the tables on pages 38-43 of the March 2001 Compliance Report documents that not only did we promote participation\n X ---------------------------J  fcW |ZUA bAVZip/UUIWlX, we were VERY successful. Many of these African American students, no doubt, took on the challenge of an advanced course without ever having been in a Pre-AP course, and therefore they had to work hard to compete with students who had had a stronger  preparation. The District has placed great emphasis on putting all able students into the advanced courses, beginning in grade 6, so that the African American students, especially, will no longer have the problem of inadequate preparation. 18Mr. Walker ought to be praising the District for this success, something that almost district in the United States has been able to achieve, and that is a 69 percent improvement in the numbers of African American students enrolled in Advanced Placement coursesin only three years! no Mr. Walker obviously did not understand the data in the tables. He wrote that Taking into account the fact that non Black students are only approximately one third of the school system, their numbers increased to a point that virtually every non-black student is in an AP class. The totals provided for each course are exactly what they saythe totals for each courses enrollment, by race. But the totals at the bottom of the table include what we call duplicated counts\nthat is, many students take more than one Advanced Placement course, so the same student may be counted one, two, three, perhaps even four times, depending on his/her schedule. The table does not state, therefore, that there were 797 individual African American students and 1495 other individual students taking AP courses in 2000-01. It states that there were, if we add up the African American enrollments in all AP courses, there were 797 instances when that occurred, and there were 1495 instances when other students were enrolled in those courses. Therefore, it is untrue that virtually every non-BIack student is in an AP course. An example of what is accurate follows: If we look at the AP course with the largest enrollment in 2000-01, then that is AP English IV, with a total of 359 students. Of that total, 142 are African American and 217 are other. AP English TV is also the course with the largest other enrollment. In this case, then, 14 percent of the African American seniors in 2000-01 (1003 students), and 39 percent of the other students were in the AP English IV course (557). Clearly, then, using the most extreme possibility, the maximum number of other students taking this AP course was 39 percent, hardly virtually every non-Black student in the District. Then another example. If we look at AP American History, there were 167 African American and 132 other students enrolled in that courses in 2000-01. In this case, 17 percent of all the African American students were enrolled, and 24 percent of all other students were enrolledagain a 5) long way from virtually every non-Black student. Mr. Walkers projections that follow this discussion are similarly based on untrue assumptions about the dAfa What is puzzling about Mr. Walkers objections to this section of the report is that we totally fails to acknowledge the success of the Districts efforts. Even though these efforts also improved other student participation in AP course-taking, the wonderful news is that 75 more African American students were enrolled in AP English III than there were three years ago! And 49 more African American students were enrolled in AP English IV than three years ago! And 42 more African American students were enrolled in AP Statistics than three years ago! And 20 more African American students were enrolled in AP Chemistry than three years ago! And 57 more African American students were enrolled in AP Environmental Science than three years ago! And 60 more African American students were enrolled in AP American History than three years ago! And 18 more African American students were enrolled in AP Psychology than three years ago. 19 i iIn all those classes we are seeing double-digit gains. Andit is going to continue to improve! In contrast, if we look at a comparison of 1997-98 and 1998-99, before the Districts interventions began, we see an increase in the bottom line of only 70 students. There were only three double-digit gains, two of them due to the addition of the course to the curriculum\nAP English IH grew from 0 to 22 African American students in 1998-99, and AP Art History grew from 0 to 29. African American enrollment in AP Environmental Science grew from 2 to 16. Also, Mr. Walker continues to use the term place students in classes when it is clear from our documents that we do not place students. We allow students to choose their course levels, and we are celebrating mightily that increasing numbers of African American students are choosing the advanced levels.  Mr. Walker stated that . . . every time an additional Black student is placed into an AP course, 1.5 white students are placed in to AP classes. The further ahead we get, the further behind we get comment often made by African American citizens is given dramatic proof by this single statistic. In fact, the opposite is true. The percentage of African American students enrolled in the AP courses remains at about 1/3 of the total for now. But since the total pool of students taking AP courses has increased dramatically, so did the numbers of African American students who participated. Mr. Walker conveniently ignored the evidence presented in the growing participation of African American students at the lower gradeswhich will, in the coming years, dramatically increase the percentage, as well as the numbers, of African American students participating in advanced courses. It is important also to remember that the District implemented the series of Pre-AP courses for the first time in fall 1999. This program is just now in fall 2001 producing students who have had Pre-AP courses in grades 9-10 to prepare them well for the AP courses that begin in grade 11. The tables and analyses are displayed on pp. 39-43 of the March 2001 Compliance Report. A couple of examples are presented here for emphasis. In fall 1997 there were only 93 African American students taking AP English IV. As a result of the Districts initiatives, including adding an AP English courses at the junior level, there were 217 African American students participating in Advanced Placement English at two grade levels. That is an increase of 124 students124 more African American students who see themselves as college material, 124 more African American students who have an opportunity to earn college credit, 124 more African American students who will do better in college English because they took this course, regardless of whether they pass the AP examination (College Board research), and 124 more African American students who took on the challenge of a more difficult coursefor a total of 217! But heres the potentialagain as a result of the careful implementation of a series of initiatives. In fall 1999 there were 520 African American students enrolled in Pre-AP English I and H. Now, these numbers are not duplicated counts, for no student is enrolled 20 at the same time in both Pre-AP English I and II. If all of those students enroll in AP English m-IV when they become juniors and seniors in fall 2001, then 396 additional African American student and 427 more than in fall 1997will have all those benefits. Even if half of them drop out of the college preparatory program (and we are doing everything we can to ensure that they do not) we will still double African American participation. And thats not all. In grades 6 and 7 in fall 1999 there were 761 African American students in Pre-AP English courses. Again, if they stay in the college preparatory pipeline through their junior and senior years and take AP English, we will see the 93 who were enrolled in fall 1997 grow to 761! That is an increase of 668! Why is Mr. Walker not celebrating this incredible potential? p. 24 Mr. Walker wrote that It is also interesting that when AP English in was introduced in were Black. 5 1998-99, 22 out of 35 students were Black. That soon changed. The next year, 70 of 186 -----That change occurred due to the fact that the course was made available to more than one school. When we offer a course, we cannot offer it just to one race. Therefore, as the course became more available, more white students, as well as more African American students took advantage of the opportunity. Mr. Walker made an issue of the declining enrollment of black students in Pre-AP Trigonometry on page 24 of his objections. We were concerned about that as well when we compiled the table. However, what we found out is that many African American students are choosing to take AP Statistics (with weighted grade points) as their fourth year of mathematics rather than another Pre-AP course. The African American enrollment in AP Statistics as grovwi from 8 in 1997-98 to 50 in 2000-01. So the movement out of Trigonometry may simply be a result of the f\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1328","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","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":["2001-08-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Court records","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1328"],"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":["213 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1363","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","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":["2001-07-09"],"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","Education--Evaluation","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School superintendents","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1363"],"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":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1325","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","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":["2001-07-06"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School superintendents","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1325"],"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":["166 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1373","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","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":["2001-07-05"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","School superintendents","School integration","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1373"],"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":["282 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_105","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":["2001-07","2001-08"],"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/105"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION 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 July, 2001. EIVE JUL 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NITORIM~ Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A Hagemeier, certify that on July 27, 2001, 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 7220 I Richard Roachell P .O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 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 7220 I Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 I ~a.N  MarAHagem~ 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 July 31, 2001 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 July 31 , 2001 ~ased onJhe intonuatioJl availa~ at Jun~']o, i oo1 :=t12iADE\n,calculat~ f\u0026lt;\n\u0026gt;~ 00/01, subject to penodic ~ stmentsi C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 On June 30, 2001, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 00/01 w~re as follows: LRSD - $52,788,081 NLRSD - $28, 176,324 PCSSD - $56,594,757 The allotments of State Equalization Funding caldllafed for FY 00/01 at June 30, 2001 , subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $52,788,081 NLRSD - $28,176,324 PCSSO- $56,594,757 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 July 31 , 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at June 30, 2001 for FY 00/01, 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 July 31, 2001 ~~e inform~ avail 00/01i~ject to p~~ctic adjt1s ~ s. 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 July 31, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at JunW~b. 2001 forfiY 00/01, subject to 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 July 31 , 2001 Distributions for FY 00/01 at June 30, 2001 , totaled $10,722,873. Allotment calculated for FY 00/01 was $10,722,873 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 July 31 , 2001 Calculated for FY 00/01 , 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 July 31 , 2001 E\u0026gt;fstfftJfflisfrJfoji, ~Y8rtWo1 ~t Jun~~o:w\n26o1 w~re? t h~ffiints ~alcul~ted for FY 00/01 at June 30, 2001, subject to peliod10 adJustifi~nts, were:  w $3,839,341 J,9so1~d~ $8,065,184 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 July 31, 2001 In September 2000, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 00/01 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 July 31, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance was notified to pay the second 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 July 31, 2001 In January 2001, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 00/01 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2001, the following had been paid for FY 00/01: LRSD - $2,197,201.00 NLRSD - $437,233.34 PCSSD - $1,184,784.28 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 July 31, 2001 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. 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 July 31 , 2001 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 July 31 , 2001 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. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 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 July 31, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 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 July 31, 2001 Final payment was distributed July 1994. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) 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 July 31, 2001 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 July 31, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to N LRSD 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 July 31, 2001 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 July 31, 2001 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. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) 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 . V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 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 . 9 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 July 31 , 2001 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 July 31, 2001 (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 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 July 31 , 2001 (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 July 31 , 2001 (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. 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. 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 July 31 , 2001 (Continued) 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 . ~~ !1',lEfiltation ill~'ffil\u0026lt;epl~ 14 \"\" orking 26,\u0026gt;:s20 meetin - scheduled om,2 j o P~ t 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 July 31 , 2001 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. 8. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 15 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 July 31, 2001 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 July 31, 2001 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 July 31, 2001 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 July 31 , 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. 16 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 July 31, 2001 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. 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. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new A DE 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. 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 July 31 , 2001 (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. 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 July 31 , 2001 (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. 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffinn 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 July 31, 2001 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 reaffinn its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 Ongoing Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffinn 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 July 31 , 2001 Ongoing D. Through regularoversightofthe Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 21 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 July 31 , 2001 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 developm~nt 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. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 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 July 31 , 2001 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 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 July 31 , 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 25 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 July 31, 2001 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewea 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. 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 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 July 31, 2001 (Continued) 29 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 July 31 , 2001 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 final ized 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. 30 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 31 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 July 31, 2001 (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 Leaming 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. 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 July 31, 2001 (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 Leaming, 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 July 31, 2001 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 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 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. D. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 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 July 31 , 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 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. 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. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) 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 Leaming 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. 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. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) 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. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Leaming Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 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. 38 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) 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 Leaming 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. 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. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (Continued) 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 ACTMP 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. 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 Leaming and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weirwere 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. 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. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (Continued) 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. 4 2 VI. REM ED IA TION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (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. About60 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. 4 3 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2001 (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. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31 , 2001 (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 . m ynote cation ss on t the Smart Step t were pecific atfd consultant from Houston, ~ xa~ Jivered two addresses. SP1 eon \"A Blueprint for Raising Stu~e2,t Achievement\"- Represent:tives from alf three aistricts in Pulaski Cot1hfy t ~ttended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers a'cfd administrators attended the Smart Start Conf Statehouse Cooventi   Sma ioffiative which . emp ~ . artic nt and accurate measures Sf P sme_nts, {itaft developmen t and tart Initiative focused on in:J'\u0026gt;rovihg . and ~ r all students in Graaes K-4. ~ e evenl: with: o . iyion, Dir ctor of. ~ ~AE'.\u0026gt;E. Catt Boyd a long me educa OF [earning 24-7,:, presented the 'eynoJ address. Toe 5 brea~out sessrop _ on best classl'oom pra~ ces. R e districts irt Pulaski Coo~ attended. 45 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 July 31 , 2001 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Fonn 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 July 31, 2001 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 46 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 July 31 , 2001 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 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. 47 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 July 31 , 2001 (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. 48 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 July 31 , 2001 (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. 49 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 50 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 July 31, 2001 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 July 31 , 2001 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 July 31, 2001 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 July 31 , 2001 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. 51 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 July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a DHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21 , 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 52 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 53 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 54 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 July 31, 2001 (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 Leaming 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. 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 July 31, 2001 (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. 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 July 31 , 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 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 July 31 , 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31 , 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 5 8 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 July 31, 2001 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31, 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 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 July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD), balance literacy training (PCSSD), alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Leaming through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their annual summer conference in Hot Springs, June 5-7, 2000. Among the discussions were the formation of a chapter of the National Staff Development Council, the Pathwise Mentor program grant, Smart Start, and Smart Step. In lieu of a regular monthly meeting, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and worked with the Teacher Center Coordinators during the Smart Start/Smart Step conferences, July 10-13, 2000, at the Little Rock Convention Center. The next meeting date has not yet been set. 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 July 31, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will reconvene in September, with no meeting during August. LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD applied for the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Pilot Model as a collaborative effort and were awarded $445,875 for the new teachers for the 2000-2001 school year - one of many collaborative successful ventures for the districts. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee has been working with Smart Start and Smart Step Initiatives in collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators throughout the month of August. No regular meeting is scheduled for September. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at the Arkansas Department of Education, Room 3058, with three members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. The procedures for dissemination of information within the respective districts were discussed. Members of cabinet level administrators from LRSD and PCSSD will be included in future meetings. Other topics of discussion were the Arkansas Pathwise Mentoring Program and topics of presentations for LRSD administrators. The next meeting will be Tuesday, November 7, 2000, in Room 303B, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 7, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with seven members present: Doug Ask, John Mccraney, and Dr. Ruth Simmons Herts, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nDr. Bonnie Lesley and Marion Woods, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Dr. Herts and Dr. Lesley have been added to the committee in response to each district's request to include a member of the cabinet. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the upcoming National Staff Development Council conference and the availability of math specialists and literacy specialists. The next meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 5, 2000, in Room 3038, ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, December 5, 2000, at the ADE, Room 3038, with three members present: Esther Crawford, NLRSD\nSue Walls, LRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Many of the recent staff development activities in each of the districts have been related to Smart Start and Smart Step. Other topics discussed included: the ongoing Pathwise training of mentors, the writing training pro\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_1716","title":"Court filings: District Court, motion for pre-trial order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for pretrial order; District Court, two orders; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Baker (Elementary School) recruitment plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Baker recruitment plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, 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":["2001-07"],"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":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, motion for pre-trial order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to motion for pretrial order; District Court, two orders; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) Baker (Elementary School) recruitment plan; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to the Baker recruitment plan; District Court, Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, 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/1716"],"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":["4 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL ORDER For its Motion, Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: RECEIVED .JlJL 1 o '7h01 _O.OUC f .. ... . , PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS 1. The Court directed counsel for the Joshua interveners on Friday not to directly contact LRSD employees concerning this case. On Saturday, counsel for the Joshua interveners called an LRSD employee at home to discuss the case. 2. The Court also directed the Joshua interveners to provide LRSD a witness list by Friday subject to revision of the witness list on Monday. Joshua provided a list on Friday afternoon which listed twenty-five people as witnesses, and additional seven people \"tentative witnesses\" and noted that Joshua also intended to call \"the monitor and associate monitors of the ODM\". Counsel for Joshua said by telephone and confirmed in a letter that Joshua's witnesses for Thursday and Friday would be five LRSD witnesses as well as Ann Marshall, Gene Jones and Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation monitoring. LRSD confirmed in writing that the witnesses would be available and asked Joshua to provide the order of their expected testimony so that arrangements could be made to have them in Court at the appropriate time. 3. Counsel for Joshua also said by telephone and confirmed in writing that Dr. Lesley would not be needed as a witness until the August hearing dates. LRSD confirmed in writing that - Dr. Lesley will not be available until the August hearing dates. 4. On Monday afternoon, counsel for Joshua added ten names to his witness list bringing Joshua's total number of witnesses to forty-five. 5. Counsel for Joshua requested time to \"interview\" for LRSD witnesses on Monday evening or Tuesday. Joshua was informed that two of the witnesses were out of town and that the other two were busy preparing the hearing. 6. On June 10, 1998, LRSD and Joshua made the following agreement with respect to Joshua's participation in implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: For fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333 .33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan contained a process by which Joshua could bring to the attention ofLRSD, and ultimately the Court, and problems with LRSD' s implementation of the plan. No such problems were brought to the Court's attention during the entire three-year period. LRSD filed an interim compliance report in March of2000 which showed that LRSD was in compliance with its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Joshua filed no response or objection to the interim compliance report. LRSD' s final compliance report was filed on March 15, 2001 . Joshua was given until May 18, 2001 to file objections and a hearing was set for July 5 and 6, 2001. Joshua's deadline for filing objections was extended twice and the objections were filed on June 25, 2001. Within the past two weeks, Joshua has sent dozens of FOI requests seeking thousands of pages of documents many of which were previously provided to Joshua, many of which were produced by committees which contained Joshua representatives and all of which Joshua could easily have reviewed months ago in accordance with the LRSD's 2 agreement to reimburse Joshua's fees for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. During the last two weeks, Joshua representatives have also met personally and by telephone with the LRSD Administrators responsible for drafting the Compliance Report. 7. After the close of business on Monday evening, Joshua sent two faxes. The first added eleven names to Joshua's witness list, which now totals fifty-six. Joshua has apparently still not made a final determination about the exhibits to be presented at trial. The second fax purports to rescind Joshua's agreement that Dr. Leslie would not be called as a witness on Thursday or Friday. Apparently in retaliation for LRSD's inability to present witnesses for \"interviews\" at the last minute, counsel for Joshua threatened to subpoena Dr. Leslie to appear on Friday. This can only be because of counsel's knowledge that Dr. Leslie is willing to appear on Thursday but must attend a family reunion in Texas on Friday. 8. The Court expressed on Friday the hope and the expectation that counsel for the parties would be able to resolve any pre-trial issues. That has not happened. LRSD must now request that the Court limit Joshua's presentation on Thursday and Friday to the five LRSD witnesses originally requested as well as the representatives of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and that the Court require reasonable witness and exhibit lists and establish the parameters for any remaining discovery in this case, including the opportunity for LRSD to depose the witnesses from outside the district who were added last night to Joshua's witness list. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order limiting the presentation of witnesses on Thursday and Friday to those originally identified by Joshua, establishing deadlines for providing exhibit lists and reasonable witness lists, establishing a pre-trial process to determine the expected length of trial and providing reasonable limitations on the issues 3 to be presented at trial and on the length of the trial, and establishing a deadline for the completion of any remaining discovery. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christopher Heller, hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing pleading has been served upon: by mailing a copy of same by U. S. Postal Service on July 3, 2001. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 3rd day of July 3, 2001 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue  ock, AR 72201 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4: 82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. - KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PRETRIAL ORDER JUL 5 -1001 OfflCEOf DESEGREGAl\\ON MONUOUI PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Comes now the Joshua Intervenors, for their response to LRSD' s Motion for Pretrial Order, and state that Joshua is just in receipt ofLRSD's motion to limit evidence and to prevent a fair hearing. Since the court orders on Friday, June 29, 2001, the District has sought to obstruct and preclude the Joshua Intervenors from obtaining information and having access to witnesses. The District's counsel has made himself unavailable to be responsive to the reasonable requests of the Intervemors for information and access to personnel. This is the same vein in which LRSD's sought to lull Intervenors counsel's into the belief that counsel was preceding to undertake settlement negotiations in good faith. It is now evident that the settlement negotiations were delayed, and not otherwise conducted in good faith in an effort to prevent Intervemors' counsel from having access to information. The Motion for Pre-Trial Order is untimely and designed - further to interfere with Intervenors' counsel's ability to prepare for hearing set for Thursday. LRSD's motion is a motion for reconsideration of the court's ruling wherein the court required the LRSD to make its personnel reasonable accessibility to Joshua so that neither side would be subject to surprise during the trial. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the court reinforce its order requiring the LRSD to cooperate with the Joshua Intervenors, in the manner established during the years of this litigation so that the court can have the benefit of actual facts and evidence to enable the court to make her judgments herein. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Sii:::t~~fe CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been faxed to Mr. Chris Heller at 376-2147 and Ms. Ann Brown at 371-0100 and copies sent to other counsel ofrecord via United States mail, postage prepaid on this 3\" day of~ 'ti!; y('~ FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT .A.RKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL O 9 2001 JA_MESJW.~\\CORMACK CLERK By. \\v ,~\\l [\\ C\\I\\ ~C\u003e D PCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUL 11 2001 OffiCEOf DESE6REGATJON MONITORING 0 RD ER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS On July 5th and 6th , 2001 , a hearing was conducted pursuant to Little - Rock School District's request for the Court to declare it t o be in unitary status and Joshua's objections thereto. The evidence not being completed, the hearing with respect to the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on August 1, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., and proceed until noon on August 2, 2001. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no later than July 2 4, 2001.  Thereafter, the remainder of the hearing on the issues of achievement and discipline will continue on November 19th and 20th , 2001, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. The parties are to exchange lists o f any additional witnesses or exhibits no later than November 1, 2001. A hearing on additional issues in this matter is hereby scheduled to begin on Monday, January 28, 2002, at 9:00 a.m., if necessary. For P. 1 :14 5 4 i,  - 2 - this hearing, witness and exhibit lists are to be exchanged no later than January 4, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this '11t\\_ day of~' 2001. S~B8u.~~ Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULl;.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 2:ID-0 J sv___.Ttr\"---t---- RECEIVED ttrric~ ..... VITI f: !.Jr COURT FILED \u00266REGATIOM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT '=ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL JUL 1 0 2001 JAMESJ. M~RMACK, CLERK By: \\ , -....U /\\ (\\/\\ fl..A DEP ~LEf$.-. vs. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion for a pretrial order filed by Little Rock School District which appears to be moot at this time pursuant to the order entered this date setting forth deadlines for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists prior to the hearings that currently are scheduled in this matter. The Clerk is directed to make the necessary docket entry removing said motion from the pending motions' report in this matter. Dated this 10~ day of July, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE: 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 7--f0 - 0/ BY lJt:: SUS WEBERWRIGirr' Chief United States District Judge \"\"\" . t J4 5 5 I, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COlJNrv S~PE CIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN RECEIVED JUL 16 2001 OFFICE OF DESmREGATION MONITOill PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS There has been significant demand by LRSD minority students for seats at Baker Elementary over the past several years. Exhibit 1 is a copy of the most recent enrollment projection for Baker. The conversion of Baker to a middle school frees up the two sixth grade classrooms. The PCSSD proposes to add an additional kindergarten class for the 2001-2002 school year to be followed by the addition of yet another kindergarten class for the following school year. This would give Baker, in year 2, three first grade classes and three kindergarten classes. These classes would then be \"rolled up\" year by year until the first entering kindergarten class matriculated in the fifth grade and the process would then start over. The PCSSD believes that the emphasis upon recruiting at kindergarten over two years is the most practical approach it can take. It believes that attracting children at this level before they are settled into other schools is both rational and the most reasonable strategy to deploy. 249234-v1 Baker needs to recruit only about 22 additional minority children over two years to attain an enrollment that is safely 20% minority 1 . The PCS SD believes that this strategy, as outlined above, will accomplish this objective.2 The PCSSD believes that the construction of the new activities complex, approved by this Court, will facilitate and ---~!lhance it~ current recT~i!i!1] _effort_s. A~ a source for new students, the District's recruitment strategy will be narrowly focused as described below. Recruiting Target A new apartment complex for low income housing was completed recently at 15000 Chenal Parkway approximately one-half mile from Baker Elementary. The name of the complex is \"Chenal Park\". It is on the border of the PCSSD and LRSD. Chenal Park contains 176 two and three bedroom apartments for low income families. Information supplied by the LRSD reveals that the LRSD currently educates 48 elementary-aged minority students from Chenal Park of whom 40 are currently assigned to Terry with the remainder scattered among other schools, principally the stipulation magnet schools. (Exhibit 2). In the last two years, school-aged children from Chenal Park have applied to attend Baker under the assumption that its proximity to their homes meant it was their neighborhood school. Until now, the PCSSD has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of these requests. Because of Baker's proximity to Chenal Park, its reputation, the enhancements to the campus that the Court has approved and because of the prior interest expressed by - 1 This, of course, is a minimum goal. However, the PCSSD believes this to be a reasonable initial goal for this on-going effort. 2 Ideally, the PCSSD could commit the funds to add a class at each grade level. However, the recent millage defeat and the allegation made by some that Baker is an \"identifiably white\" school has dissuaded the District from this proposition. 249234-v1 2 some residents of Chenal Park, the PCSSD believes that this recruitment effort over a period of two years should bring Baker into compliance with its racial balance goals. The PCSSD has scheduled a \"registration carnival\" to be held at Baker on August 1, 2001. The publicity for this event has been targeted to Chenal Park. August 1st is the first day of PCSSD's three-day registration period. Thus, this timing will permit - - - - - -- --. -- - ---- - -- --- the PCSSD to prefer potential M to M students from Chenal Park before the PCSSD must commit any remaining seats to applicants from within its attendance zone. 249234-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By __:__...:;....,1 _ ___;;;_.....:..;1=-------M. A Sc 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 13, 2001, 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 7220f --. -  Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier 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 249234-v1 M.S~onesll 4 07 / 12/!ll f.Iru 15: 46 FAX -~141002 Memo . ... _ To: From: Date: Re: STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE Chris Heller  x/ /\\ J Julie Wiedo~er, Director of Student Reg-istrati~O v eJ unes~~ ~ Requ.~~~ for Student Information Pursuant to our telephone conversation yesterday, I have determined that there have been at least 40 Little Rock School District students who have applied through the M to M Transfer application for a school assignment at Baker Elementary School in the Pulaski County Special School District over the past four years and who have not been enrolled. The County's inability to place our M to M students at Baker has been related to a lack of scat capacity after they have placed the Baker zone students. Our data for the 2001-02 school year shows a total of27 Little Rock School District M to M students assigned to Baker, including no kindergartners and only two 1st graders. Pulaski County Special School District has requested the number of elementary students currently on our database living at the apartment complex at l.5000 Chenal Parkway. There are 48 black students and 12 non-black students and 40 of these students are attending Terry Elementary school, the attendance zone school for that area. The remaining 20 are attending Williams, Carver, Booker, King and Washington magnet schools, as well as McDermott, Fulbright and Dodd attendance zone schools. All of these schools are racially balanced. CC: Junious Babbs, Associate Supcdntendent for Administrative Services EXHIBIT I 501 SHERMAN STREET - LITTLE ROCK AR. 72202 - P.HONE: 32~2272 - FAX: 324-2281 - - - .. . al --.J '- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT I-'. ! w Enrollment ProiecUons - 2001-2002 Revised 05-21-01 i '-' Iv C1ass PRE-K KIND. FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH SIXTH TOTA\\. ELEMENTARY a:19 .a..l. . Capacity DLK WHT TOT BLK WJIT TOT BLK WlIT ror BLK WBT TOT BLK WOT TOT BLK \\VDT T\u003cJf fiLK WIIT 1'0T BLK WJIT ror BLK \" WBT ,,. TOT  ~LEMENTARY SCHOOLS CS) .C.D I-' .DIJNS 370 16 4 20 16 4 20 29 19 48 23 18 41 21 11 44 19 20 39 25 22 47 0 0 0 155 60% 104 40% 259 I-' illNOLDDR. 420 0 0 0 ts Gl 77 15 62 77 11 6S 76 I4 41 62 17 44 61 J-4 47 \" 0 0 0 86 21~ 328 1''il, -414 IAXER 330 0 0 0 6 34 40 6 34 40 7 37 44 7 41 4\u0026 2 46 48 10 30 -4(1 0 0 0 38 15~ 222 \u0026s'il, uo U1 al I-' IATBS 750 31 n 54 31 23 54 43 43 16 47 '7 94 48 3:5 83 51 46 97 12 S8 J'.lO 0 0 0 323 S4'1\u003e 27S 46~ S'JS I ~ IAYOUMETO \" 0 0 0 4 61 n 4 6B n 2 83 15 3 11 80 2 90 n 2 75 77 0 0 0 17 4'1, 461 96'11 478 \u003c.D al I :ATO 576 0 0 0 15 49 64 JS 49 64 10 68 78 16 46 62 20 59 79 16 54 70 0 0 0 92 2291- 325 78'1, 411 I-' w :LINTON 8l3 31 33 71 38 33 71 37 41 78 42 49 91 59 52 111 41 48 89 S9 52 lit 0 0 0 314 50% U1 308 50% 622 Iv '.:OLLl!GESTA 34-0 0 0 0 6 3 9 4 6 10 9 3 12 II 2 13 27 19 46 20 lO 50 0 0 0 77 SS% 63 45% 140 CRYSI\"ALIUL uo 29 24 53 29 24 53 46 54 JOO 53 49 102 41 47 9S ,1 49 96 54 52 ,~ 53 59 111 359 50% 3S\u0026 50% 717 DUPIIJ!R 465 0 0 0 13 39 52 13 39 .52 15 31 46 ll 34 47 20 49 69 12 37 49 0 0 0 86 17% 229 7311, 315 IJ..UUUS 525 0 0 (I 12 10 22 12 10 22 16 12 78 16 12 28 21 7 34 29 21 50 0 0 0 112 61~- 72 :w;i. 184 l'VILU .ELE.\"1 715 0 0 0 62 4, 111 62 49 Ill 45 SI ,6 j5 38 93 54 45 99 51 40 91 0 0 0 329 5$\\l, 272 45',/, 001 l.ANDllfARK 568 11 18 3S 11 u lS 24 26 50 25 26 SI 22 28 ,o 30 37 61 35 34 69 0 0 0 170 48111, 187 52% 3S7 111 LAWSON 325 0 9 40 49 9 40 49 3 32 JS 8 24 32 7 34 41 ' 11 36 0 0 0 45 19~ 197 81',\\ 242 ) C H JAKGROVJU 476 17 55 72 17 55 n 9 .(0 .(9 12 41 SJ 11 33 44 JO 33 43 14 41 55 14 37 51 104 24~ 335 76\\l- .. 439 --1 \u003c DAirnROOKB 500 0 0 0 II 27 38 11 27 38 18 33 51 21 )6 51 14 41 55 14 27 41 0 0 0 \u00269 32% 191 6S% 280 lJ C ~JNRFORIISf 556 0 16 44 w 16 4' 60 JO 5-2 62 13 31 so 10 73 83 II 53 M 21 65 116 91 21% 361 19% 6:5 lJ H r ~INJ!.WOOO 5l3 0 0 0 12 54 76 12 54 16 n 38 61 22 4\u0026 70 22 411 10 30 39 69 0 0 0 141 3J'ilo 211 67% 422 lf) lWBIN. ELEM. 459 0 s 39 47 ' 41 .:so ~ 39 48 14 43 S1 15 41 51 15 47 62 0 0 0 10 21')1, 251 78'i1, 321 111 ;o \u003c SCOTI 180 0 4 19 23 4 l9 2) 8 21 29 7 10 17 8 10 18 7 JI 18 0 0 0 38 30,t 90 7(111, 118 H () 111 SRl!Jl \\\\'0OD 460 0 )9 37 SC, 19 37 56 19 33 52 16 37 53 20 43 (i3 19 33 52 0 0 0 112 34'll\u003e 220 6~1' 3]2. SYL. IDLl.S El 456 0 11 38 s~ 18 38 56 11 33 44 21 19 so 22 45 67 25 46 71 0 0 0 11:5 339, 2:2.9 67'l 344 TAYLOR uo 0 21 3S 56 21 35 56 19 36 55 JO JI 61 30 36 66 22 32 54 0 0 0 143 4191, 205 59'1- 348 l'OLLl!SON 570 0 0 0 13 46 59 13 '6 S9 15 51 66 11 48 6.5 20 47 61 14 40 54 0 0 0 92 l!i'll, 278 7S'l, 310 T01\"AJ.11L~t. U81 141 157 .l415 421 150 tl72 461 921 1312 452 943 1400 519 853 nn 535 1011 1546 51JI 941 1527 88 161 l49 32Al~ 35~ S1149 65% ,e53 lJ l\u003e EXHIBIT G) 111 I I al Iv '- CS) Iv -- - --- UFILEO EASTElN '6\\i~~',g. COURT ARKANSAS JUL 2 6 2001 ~AMES W. McCORMACK IN THE UNJTED STATES DISTRICT cctDR1  CLEF~K EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEP CLERK WESTERN DMSION LITTLE'ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUL 2 7 2001 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORIN\u0026 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Baker Recruitment Plan, state: 1. Counsel is preparing in the instant case for a hearing scheduled for next week, August 1, 2001. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Undersigned counsel has been unsuccessful in contacting counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District to determine whether he has objections to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Baker Recruitment Plan up to and including July 30, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501):-J)3758  By ~ fi'Wdl~ John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record on this 26th day ofJuly, 2001 via United States m , postage prepaid. fY, W'ttt\u0026~ RECEIVED AUG 1 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 3 0 2001 OfRCEOF QESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK WESTERN DMSION By: ' DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN The Court entered an order on June 5, 2001 where it approved defendant's motion for  permission to add an activities complex in Baker Interdistrict school. The Court noted that the defendants had asserted \"that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker ... \" The Order was not a final one for purposes of appeal. Accordingly, the Court noted the Joshua Intervenors' objections in Footnote 2 of the Order and called attention to Section J of the plan by which the defendants are now reportedly operating their school. The Court did not address the Joshua question of the possibility that private donations may not be used to establish \"separate but unequal schools\". The Court required the Defendant PCSSD to file a report \"setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligation of Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further [ directed] the PCS SD to set forth target dates for the completion of these obligations. The defendants have now submitted their recruitment plan. The Joshua Intevenors observe that the Court required a report which set forth how the district intends to meet its obligation under Section J and directed a target date for completion of the obligation. The Joshua Intervenors do not believe that the defendants have complied with the -1- Court's requirements. The defendants propose the following: a) There will be no recruitment. This is so because enough Little Rock students who reside within the Chenal Park area have applied for entry to Baker but have not been admitted before now because Baker did not have sufficient space to accommodate b) c) d) e)  their requests. If PCS SD recruitment does occur, it will be at the kindergarten level only, and be spread over a two year period. It will involve only 22 Little Rock minority children, a number which will cause the Baker enrollment to eventually be 20% minority. It will not involve and be limited to those pupils who apply during recruitment of black students from the Little Rock District as a whole. It will involve the \"registration carnival\" targeted to occur on August 1st . The Joshua objections at the least are as follows pending a hearing: a) The defendants' response is totally insufficient in that it to meet the explicit orders of the Court. b) The defendants seek to limit the geographic area of Little Rock from which minority students may be selected or, may themselves make a choice of their own for school attendance. Joshua objects to transfers from the Little Rock School District of minority students being limited to the Chenal area or, for that matter to low income minority children. c) The purported recruitment plan imposes no affirmative obligations upon the -2- d) defendants, or for that matter the Little Rock School District, to recruit minority students to Baker, by number, method of recruitment, or by date of recruitment. The defendants allege that they have not admitted more minority students to Baker, despite the applications of minority students for Baker from Little Rock, because the PCSSD \"has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of [their] requests\". This  proposition is factually incorrect on its face. See the ODM report on capacity. Baker does not now appear to be at or near capacity. Indeed, Baker has space to accommodate, without class additions 70 students. It could easily accommodate more than 40 black applicants in grades kindergarten through fifth with ease at one time. Accommodation of only 40 black applicants, assuming that the defendants' projections are otherwise correct, would mean that Baker would experience a racial balance of74% white and 26% black for the next school year. The District's proposal to limit placement of black students in kindergarten classes is totally unreasonable and negative to desegregation objectives. Furthermore, the school district proposes to add two kindergarten and effectively an additional first grade class. This undoubtedly would result in between 60 and 75 additional students for a total enrollment 335 students with a net result of Baker's enrollment being only 17% - up from 15% - rather than 20%. Joshua submits that the Baker plan is simply a plan to further enrollment options for majority race students at Baker. Joshua further submits to obtain preliminary Court approval for expanding the basic enrollment capacity of Baker and to enlarge the Baker attendance zone in order to accommodate the increased demand being made by white pupils. -3- e) There is no justification submitted by PCS SD for disallowing primary grade minority students' attendance at Baker as proposed by the defendants. f) The defendants did not set forth as required target dates for the completion of its obligations. Specifically, the defendants did not consult the Joshua Intervenors nor did they otherwise meet the Court's expectations before they submitted their report. g)  The defendants' plan requires a minimal goal of 20% for an interdistrict school. The Joshua Intervenors further believe that they are entitled to have an evidentiary hearing before school for which they pray. At that time the defendants should be required to sufficiently . demonstrate the actions which it has taken in response to the Order of the Court. Joshua notes that the response of the defendant is from defendant's counsel; it is without affidavit support and the factual representations may not be subject to examination because they have been lawyer generated. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the defendants' \"Baker Recruitment Plan\" be disapproved, because it is not in compliance with the Court's Orders of June 5, 2001 ; that the defendants be directed not to accept any new white students for registration for Baker pending further Orders of the Court; that the defendants be required to develop and implement an effective recruitment plan which affords Little Rock School District minority students immediate transfer options and to assure that such persons electing to transfer will be treated on equally favorable terms as PCSSD Baker attendance zone white children; and that the Court schedule a hearing, before the beginning of school, so that the defendants may report upon the actual progress and results that the district has achieved. The Joshua Intervenors further requests that the defendants be specifically required to involve the Joshua Intervenors in all planning and implementation activities of the school district to the extent that same is required by the revised desegregation plan -4- approved by the Court, pendente lite. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 74- 187 (Fax) J CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this M day of July, 2001. Mr.M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 -5- Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 \\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION 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 July, 2001. RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 20 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on July 27, 2001, 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, ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 :TohnW. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittleRock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard 425 West Capitol Ave. Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 s'tepheri w. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1346","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","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":["2001-06-29"],"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","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"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/1346"],"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":["247 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1708","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-06"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education, Secondary","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1708"],"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":["8 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION The PCSSD, for its supplement to motion, states: RECI\\VEO jU~ 4 10m --==-- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" is a timeline received today from the Little Rock School District setting forth its middle school activities. 2. While the Little Rock District began a pilot program that concluded in 1997, it is clear that the actual work of committees and others to plan and implement a district-wide implementation did not begin in earnest until January of 1998. 3. Thus, if one compares the activities of the LRSD and the PCSSD respecting district-wide implementation and activities undertaken with respect thereto, it - is apparent that the timelines, actions and other strategies are very similar. 4. Indeed, in the area of professional development and training, the timelines and activities are virtually identical. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD renews its requests that its motion to implement middle schools be approved as soon as possible. 258646-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2001, 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 258646-v1 2 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier 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 258646-v1 .am el Jones Ill ~  3 JUN-Oi-ot FRI t0:05 AM FAX NO, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE DATI: 1990- 1997 December, 1995 January, 1998 January. 1998 January, 1998 March, 1998 March, 1998 October, 1998 Fall, 1998 ACTIVITY Middle school concepts piloted within  junior high configuration at Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Cloverdale and Southwest Junior Highs with support of the New Futures/C~sey grant LRSD Strategic Plan approved by Boa.rd of Education: Strategic Plan Includes district wide middle schools Revised Desegregation and Education Plan includes establishment of a sched1.1le for the orderly conversion of some or all of Its junior high schools to middle schools arades 6-8 Completion of district wide plan for an orderlv transition to middle schools Initial meeting of the LRSD Middle School Steering Committee. Committee received the cha,ge and tasks of serving as the coordinating committee throughout the planning and initial implementation process and to make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding the development and lmplementatlon of the middle school transition. LRSD Middle School Program Mission Statement adopted by LRSO Board of Education Stl;lering committee eleven subcommittees receive charge and task\u0026 and becin work LRSD Middle School Program Standards adopted by the Board of Education Steering committee/sub-committee recommendations finalized; regular communication briefing\u0026 conducted throuahout communltv l;XHIBIT I A P. 02/03 JUN-01~01 FRi t0:05 AM FAX NO. P. 03/03 Winter, 1999 Phase One of professional development program initiated; continued communlcat!on updates Implementation of initial phase of approved recommendation5; steering committee submits final recommendations to Superintendent; completed staff assignments for middle schools and high schools; elementary, Junior highs and high schools complete clans for student transitions Spring, 1999 Finalize logistical plans; Phase Two of professional development program; continued communication updates; implemented Intermediate phase of oroarem recommendations Summer, 1999 Phase Three of professional development program; implement logistical plan; complete final phase of oroQram recommendations Fall, 1899 OoeninQ of LRSD middle schools -- ----- - - - - - - - - ------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN O ~ 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * Intervenors. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RECEIVED JUN 8 2001 OfflCEOF IISBi\u0026IIIIIIJI Before the Court are the motion and supplements to the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of a conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools for the 2001-02 school year. Also before the Court are the PCSSD's motion and supplement to the motion for approval of middle school construction modification. The Court held a hearing on the motions for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools on May 4, 2001. On May 21, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors and the Knight Intervenors, on behalf of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff (\"PASS\"), filed objections to the middle school conversion. On May 29, 2001, the PCSSD filed its response to those objections. Upon review of the motions, objections, and response, as well as the evidence presented during the May 4, 2001 hearing, the Court determines that it will not prevent the PCSSD from proceeding with the conversion to -middle schools for the coming school year and grants the motions. 34 40 I. When the PCSSD initially filed its motion for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools, the Court had concerns about the degree of planning that the PCSSD invested in the conversion and about whether its desegregation obligations were being addressed. The submissions in support of the motions did not reflect a coherent plan of action and there was no indication that the PCSSD used desegregation and equity as a filter through which to plan and implement various aspects of the middle school concept, such as racial balance, student assignment, staffing, capacity, and student recruitment issues. Further, the PCSSD's filing did not reflect evidence that the Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services and the Director of Desegregation were significantly involved in the middle school planning or implementation process. In addition, there was no budget document that broke down all the costs of the middle school conversion, and there were no projections of enrollment and racial balance at Bates Elementary School nor recruitment plans for Bates in conjunction with the middle school conversion. The issues regarding Bates were specifically raised by the Court during the August 9, 2000 hearing on an administrative reorganization and a modification of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. At the hearing held on May 4, 2001, several parents testified as to their involvement in the conversion to middle schools. From their testimony, the Court concludes that parental involvement was minimal. Ms. Gloria Rousseau, Director of Secondary Education and Chairman of the Middle School Task Force, who took over in the middle of the conversion process after Dr. James Fox, an assistant superintendent, became ill and subsequently resigned, testified regarding her efforts to involve parents and teachers in the process. She testified that the PCSSD had no 2 written comprehensive district-wide plan for conversion to middle schools nor did the District have an overall plan addressing the effects conversion would have on desegregation. The Joshua lntervenors object to the conversion on the basis that the PCSSD has yet to comply with its desegregation commitments, has not considered the racial impact of the middle school conversion, has no written plans for conversion of the schools or a time table, has not involved the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation regarding desegregation impact, and has not collaborated with the other parties in the case regarding implementation or planning. The PACT and PASS contend that the PCSSD has failed to involve stakeholder groups in the planning process. They object to the conversion as well, asserting the lack of a district-wide comprehensive written plan, the lack of a staff development training program, the lack of space, and the lack of timely deployment of staff. All these shortcomings have resulted in confusion, - frustration, anxiety, and low teacher morale. In response to these objections, the PCSSD disputes the Joshua Intervenors' assertion that the District has not complied with its desegregation commitments and has not considered the racial impact of middle schools. The PCSSD reiterates that no student assignment zones will change, and that it will continue to apply the same rules regarding assignment and allocation of staff. Further, the PCSSD submits a Plan for Transition to Middle Schools as an exhibit to its response as well as consolidated timetables for all activities which have occurred and the few that are yet to occur. The PCSSD points out the testimony of Mr. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services, who stated he is comfortable with the process and the activities which have occurred, and Ms. Rousseau's testimony concerning the middle schools and districts which the PCSSD examined and visited as part of this process. 3 In response to the PACT and PASS objections, the PCSSD asserts their objections are \"untimely, speculative, and premised largely upon double and triple hearsay, and . mischaracterization of witnesses' testimony.\" 1 In addition, the PCSSD submits exhibits which it contends show that, contrary to the assertions made by PACT, the staff allocation process is 94 % complete for the middle schools,2 and that the agreement between the District and the Union regarding the conversion does not require that middle school personnel placement be completed by the end of May. 3 Further, the PCSSD submits an exhibit which it contends shows that the reservation of openings for minority staff is in keeping with Plan 2000 in which the District committed to increasing the number of African-American secondary core teachers. 4 Neither the Court nor any of the parties or intervenors conceptually oppose the conversion of the school grade alignment from essentially a six-grade primary, three-grade junior high and three-grade senior high to a five-grade primary, three-grade middle, and four-grade high school configuration. The Court continues to have its own concerns and shares the concerns of the objectors about the lack of planning and stakeholder involvement on the part of the PCSSD in the conversion to middle schools. However, the Court believes and hopes that the implementation of the middle school concept will benefit student achievement and reduce disparity. In addition, the Court believes it is important for the PCSSD to align its grade configuration with those of the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts as soon as possible to avoid negative impacts 1See Docket entry 3435 (PCSSD's Combined Reply to Joshua Intervenors and PACT) at 3. 2See Docket entry 3435, Ex. D. 3See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4 on M-to-M recruiting and magnet school attendance. The Court determines that putting a hold on the conversion to middle schools, however flawed the planning has been, would be more damaging than allowing the PCSSD to proceed to middle school conversion on the present schedule. The Court, therefore, will not prevent the conversion to middle schools and will grant the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the conversion process and the impact of the realignment on the desegregation plan. II. Also before the Court are motions to approve middle school construction modification.  The Court notes that the construction projects at Mills and Robinson High Schools were underway  prior to the filing of the April 13, 2001 motion and April 18, 2001 supplement to the motion. Additionally, to seek the court's permission for construction after the fact is neither a demonstration of good planning and management nor a manifestation -of good faith on the part of the PCSSD. The Court is concerned about the changes in building capacities and in the use of space created at the elementary schools when the sixth grade is moved to middle schools. Again, the Court does not wish to obstruct the implementation of the conversion to middle schools in the PCSSD and, therefore, grants the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the impact of the construction upon the desegregation plan as well as the use of space created by the middle school conversion. 5 m. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions to approve middle schools and revamped high schools5 are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to approve middle school construction modification6 are granted. i1f1\\.... DATED this _\"T_ day of June 2001. 5Docket entries 3402 \u0026 3422. 6Docket entries 3418 \u0026 3419. -~~~~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH R~,LE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 6 r Lf--0} BY_vf:..-,1.... __ 6 -  FILED EAsTMRsN. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 0 5 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:ME1'f, ~iri~~ ~K DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL. , * Defendants, * RECEIVED * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * JUN 13 100\\ Intervenors, * * omCEOf KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * DESE61Sll0li MONll0RlNG Intervenors. * ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSD 's Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report. 1 Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [ docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this~ day of June 2001. \u0026iLll~.)1~~ F JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors' counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE -~l~_')._U~~ ~8 AND/D_~9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN O 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED JUN 1 3 2001 OFFlCE Of DESEGREGATION MDNITOiUNS Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School. The Joshua Intervenors have responded in opposition to the motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion. The PCSSD notes that parents and an area business have approached the principal of Baker Interdistrict School about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room, and art room. 1 The PCSSD asserts that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker and help it compete more effectively with the private schools in the area. The Joshua Intervenors object to the motion, 1See Ex. A, PCSSD Mot. to Approve Add. of Activities Complex, docket entry 3430. arguing that the proposal has not been developed and fully considered, and may serve to further establish Baker as a racially identifiable school. Among the specific concerns expressed by the Joshua lntervenors are the PCSSD 's recruitment ( or lack thereof) of minority students from the Little Rock School District and the lack of a recruitment plan in the motion; the absence of a plan setting forth any additional resources, including staff that may be required in expanding programs; the lack of a statement of costs; no indication of whether existing programs will be duplicated; and no indication of the effect of the addition on other schools. Lastly, the Joshua Intervenors -- question whether private donations may be used to establish \"'separate but unequal' schools. \"2 The Court believes community and parental involvement in public schools, including voluntary contributions, should be encouraged. Perhaps the Baker experience will serve as an example to encourage similar parental and community involvement at other schools in the three - Pulaski County school districts. In granting the motion and approving the addition at Balcer, however, the Court directs the PCSSD to file a report by July 9, 2001, setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligations under Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further directs the PCSSD to set forth target dates for completion of these obligations.3 2See Joshua's Resp. to PCSSD's Mot. to Approve Baker Addition (docket entry 3436) at 3. 3Section J of the Plan, School Resources, provides: \"PCSSD shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors, a study to detennine whether school resources are allocated equitable (sic) among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil/teacher ratio; pupil/staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size; computer/pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified.\" See docket entry 3337, Attach. C (PCSSD Plan 2000). 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to approve the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School4 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the PCSSD file its report on or before July 9, 2001. ..JI\\.. DATED this l,) day of June 2001. ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO{IB.T THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH Rl,ILE 58 ANO/OR~) FRCP ON (c, - l.;,- Q) BY---'\\.._[L __ The Court notes that the same ten factors were addressed in the \"Report of LRSD's Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources,\" docket entry 3214. 4Docket entry 3430. 3 .,I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN f 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJA.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By. ______ =-=-- WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLEl\u003cK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District' s Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-3~74]/5]8 ~ I . By _{__Jj; _Qv'-\u003c:...,-v-'----\" J W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel ofrecord on this 15th day ofJune, 2001. RECEIVl:IJ JUN 2 5 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN 2 O 2001 ~(I~ WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * *  JA~E1. ~RMACK. ~ By. \\ ' \\ l /\\ /\\f\\ DEPCLERK vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., lntervenors. * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which - to respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further exte~ions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ~ay of June 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wll1' RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON e_~c)..(,Ol sv_rr=-: __ ~A, ~ F JUDGE --=-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRicf coUR1J.foU~1E,D EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAf SA's'STERN DISTRg A~~:~SAs WESTERN DMSION f' . JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, NIRS . LORENE JOSHUA, et al:, Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * .~:~ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2001 OfRCEOf OESE6RE6AnON lllNJTORJNG JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe further that = the Court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis -1- regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The sc:hool district's compliance report of March 15, 2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of \"the status of the district's efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan . . . \" The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being \"unitary\" at this time, and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations, -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUA'S SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICT'S REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in.the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant; the involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district1 ; and the receipt of the district of a \"quality interest award\" from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater, attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black 1 Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i.e., \"the Little Rock Nine\"; he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. .., -.)- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. 2 In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the district's past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The district's evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CL T was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Carnine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and 2The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4- has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts .on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentru.ly sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case; the actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives; and the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet  the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments; and that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the District's efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained; nor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? \"The LT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan\". P. 1, Compliance Report. \"A quality school district meets the needs of all students.\" In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itselftoproviding each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student.\" Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that obj~.ctive. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this \"autonomy\", some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLT's actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo_ than a system wide appr "}],"pages":{"current_page":42,"next_page":43,"prev_page":41,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":492,"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}}]}}