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 & 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 & 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& and becin work LRSD Middle School Program Standards adopted by the Board of Education Steering committee/sub-committee recommendations finalized; regular communication briefing& 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&IIIIIIJI 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 & 3422. 6Docket entries 3418 & 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. &iLll~.)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<K 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'-<:...,-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