Plantiff's designation of testimony to be stricken, motion for additional response time, Joshua intervenor's proposed findings against Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status, plaintiff's proposed findings, and notice of ADE project management tool.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<items type="array"> <item>

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's designation of testimony to be stricken; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to plaintiff's designation of testimony to be stricken; District Court, motion for additional time to file response; District Court, two orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in opposition to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status regarding the plan sections; District Court, plaintiff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW/JRT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 5 - 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER AUG O 2 2002 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The parties appeared before the Court by telephone in the absence of a court reporter on August 1, 2002 at 11 : 15 a.m. at which time the Court considered, upon the Joshua Intervenors' request, concerns they had with respect to Plaintiff LRSD's Motion to Strike. After hearing the position of the parties' counsel regarding the matter, the Court determined that the Plaintiff would have unit! August 9, 2002 in which to designate the specific testimony in the record which it wishes to have stricken, and that the Joshua Intervenors would have until Wednesday, August 14, 2002 at THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ,~.~vri fUi 58 ANO/O~RCP .. ,,~~ -~ .P..2::::... BY -7-~r---~..c__:=- - UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE 656 RECEIVFD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION AUG 1 .') 2002 OFFICE Of DlSEGMGATIOH ii.HuHlfu,.G LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 ,,co RECE\v t ,M) V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") hereby designates the following testimony to be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in the LRSD's Motion to Strike and accompanying brief: WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 45 1-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). C. Norman 46 1-12 Same as above. C. Norman 53 6-25 Complaints about Pickering occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 54 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 55 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 56 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 57 1-25 Same as above C. Norman 58 1-25 Complaints about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Norman, p. 71-72). C. Norman 59 1-25 Complaints about Pickering and about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year. WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 60 1-25 Complaints about Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Avis and D.J. Thames). C. Norman 61 1-20 Same as above. C. Norman 62 1-25 BCC's support of Ross and Klais occurrred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 63 1-25 BCC action against Norman and disciplinary action against Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 64 1-21 Rutherford disciplinary action occurred during 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 65 11-25 Teacher refusal to give recommendation occurred during 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 66 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 70 17-25 BCC action against Mr. Norman occurred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 71 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 72 1-18 Same as above. C. Norman 91 15-25 Cross concerning Rutherford. 1 C. Norman 92 1-14 Cross concerning BCC.2 C. Norman 92 8-23 Redirect concerning Rutherford. C. Norman 93 1-14 Concerns Chris Payne and 2001-02 school year. P. Watson 105 10-11 Concerns 2001-02 school year. P. Watson 110 14-25 Concerns 2002-03 school year. P. Watson 122 11-19 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 105) M. Faucette 196 12-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 197, line 13) 1 Plaintiffs designation of cross-examination testimony is contingent upon the direct examination being stricken. If the designated direct testimony is not stricken, Plaintiff does not want the cross-examination testimony stricken. 2See Footnote 1. 2 WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION M.Faucette 197 1-25 Same as above. M. Faucette 198 1-25 Same as above. M.Faucette 199 116 Same as above. J. Mercer 329 20-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 329, lines 14-16) J. Mercer 330 1-24 Same as above. J. Mercer 338 21-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Brooks' English IV-AP class. J. Mercer 340 18-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 341 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 342 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 343 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 344 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 345 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 346 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 348 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 349 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 1-10 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 11-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Art History-AP. J. Mercer 351 1-21 Same as above. J. Mercer 379 10-25 Cross regarding Brooks. 3 J. Mercer 380 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 381 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 382 1-25 Same as above. 3See Footnote 1. 3 WITNESS J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer -J. Mercer C.Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C.Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne 4See Footnote 1. 5See Footnote 1. PAGE 383 394 395 395 396 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 414 LINES EXPLANATION 1-5 Same as above. 24-25 Concerns his graduation in 2002. 1-10 Same as above. 11-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. 1-9 Same as above. 8-25 Re-cross regarding Brooks.4 1-9 Same as above. 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-10 Same as above. 11-25 Cross concerning his senior year, 2001- 02.5 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-5 Same as above. 6-25 Redirect concerning his senior year, 2001- 02. 4 WITNESS C. Payne C. Payne D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames -D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer 6See Footnote 1. 7See Footnote 1. PAGE 415 416 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 428 429 434 435 436 437 439 453 454 455 456 457 458 LINES EXPLANATION 1-25 Same as above. 10-13 Same as above. 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 12-25 Same as above. 1-17 Same as above. 9-25 Cross regarding Beta Club and National Honor Society.6 1-9 Same as above. 10-25 Cross regarding Pickering. 7 1-2 Same as above. 1-5 Redirect regarding Beta Club. 20-25 Cross regarding Brooks. 8 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 8See Footnote 1. This cross relates to Justin Mercer's testimony. Pam Mercer only discussed the issue generally without specific reference to Brooks, and Plaintiff has not designated that testimony to be stricken. 5 WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION P. Mercer 459 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 460 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 1-11 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 18-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. P. Mercer 462 1-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. J. Carter 497 21-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). J. Carter 498 1-3 Same as above. J. Carter 499 1-16 Same as above. The audit led to recommended staff cuts to be implemented during the 2002-03 school year (seep. 527). J. Carter 501 19-24 Same as above. J. Carter 527 4-11 Cross regarding staff cuts.9 WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the testimony designated herein be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in its Motion to Strike and accompanying brief. 9See Footnote 1. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:~t.:hJ! 2ft John C. Fendley, Jr. 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on August 9, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA FAX and MAIL) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\HOME\FENDLEY\LRSD 200 I \des-unitary-mot-strike-designations. wpd ~e.;JrJk~ c.Fendley, Jr. ' 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTER.t"J DISTRICT OF ARK.i-u"'\JSAS WESTER.t"J DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERJNE K.t"JIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED AUG 1 5 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 14 2002 J 8 AMES W. McCORM.A.CK, CLERK y --------:D=E=P-CL-E_R_K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN The Joshua Intervenors respectfully respond to the plaintiffs designation of testimony to be - stricken. 45 No objection to lines 5-25 46 No objection to lines 1-12 53-57 Testimony should not be stricken; testimony is within time frame; this is supported by pp. 56-57, 426-27; discussion continues regarding when Norman first came to McClellan in 1999 58-59 No date; testimony should stay in; the LRSD should have addressed any problem in cross-examination 60 60 61 61 No date; testimony should stay in No objection to lines 24-25 No objection to line 1 Lines 2-20; do not strike; student vvitnesses were on team during plan; no date -1- - 62 63 64 65 66 70 71 72 91 92 92 93 105 110 122 196 197 198 No date; refers to testimony of Ms. Thames who discusses Ross during DJ's 10th grade year; do not strike No objections to lines 16-2 5; 1-15 do not strike; no date No objection to lines 1-21 No date; testimony .should stay in; Governor school is necessarily before Sr. year Same as 65; do not strike No date; testimony should remain; inference that she would have staiied before 4th year Refers to 2000-01; no objection to lines 20-25 No objection to lines 1-18 No objection to lines 15-25 Lines 1-14; no date; testimony should stay in; this is cross examination; simply a general description of BCC doesn't relate to fact Lines 8-23; no reference to Rutherford on p. 92; typographical error' No reference to Cluis Payne on this page Testimony within time period No objection to lines 14-25 being disregarded This is cross examination mentioning SCEME not being active this year; this testimony stays because it refers to testimony given earlier Relates to testimony within time period; this took place during 2000-2001 school year; signing up for course to be taken during next year No objection to lines 12-25; other testimony should remain; always refers to Dr. Faucette full time as a teacher at Central Testimony should remain because it refers to last year (during relevant time period); 'Assuming that the Plaintiff was referring to page 93, lines 8-23, no objection -2- - 199 329 330 338 340-350 course was clearly taught during 2000-2001 school year; offerings took place in the Spring prior to March 15, 2001 Same as page 198 No date; testimony should remain Statement of background fact information - this includes Jr. year Background information; establishes she was white AP teacher The LRSD's objection should be rejected; had the district made timely objections as contemplated by the rules, Intervenors would have had the opport1mity to consider offering other evidence 3 5 0, lines 1 1-1 5 351 379-380 381 382-383 394 395 395-99 400 401-408 409 410 411-415 416 No date; testimony should remain Same caveat as 340-350 Inference that students over the years, including during plan years, talked about Ms. Brooks Only information on 2001 test should be stricken No objection to lines 24-25 No objection to lines 1-10 Mixed evidence (includes years during plan); deny objection Background information No date; testimony should remain; identifies pattern with Coach Rutherford (407) No date; remain in No date; testimony should remain No date; testimony should remain Background information -, -.)- 418 419 420 421 422 424 425 428 429 434 435 436 437 439 453 454-457 458 459 No date; testimony should remain; this deals with cotmseling; plaintiff utilizes presumption that counselors only deal vvith students their Sr. year regarding college Three years necessarily go back to 1999; used during 3 years No date; testimony should remain; (plaintiff argues in effect that Rutherford did this DJ's Sr. year only) Lines 17-18 clearly include the relevant time period; no way to asse11 all evidence omside period; testimony should remain No date; testimony should remain; reference to earlier years No date; testimony should remain; reference to earlier years (10th &amp; 1 l th grades) Same as 423 Lines 1-2; no date; should remain; line 25 , clearly related to proper period No date; testimony should remain Same as 428; refer pp. to 426-27; counselor told him while in J.O'h grade not to go into Pickering's class; he got out in 11 th grade; this occurred during relevant time period No date; testimony should remain Same as 434 See response top. 429; do not strike Background information; description of counselor No date; testimony should remain No objection to lines 20-25 No objection Testimony within relevant time period Same as 458 -4- - 460 461 Same as above except no objection to lines 6-25 No objection to lines 1-11 461 No objection to lines 18-25 462 No objection 1-25 497 Should remain; audit report confirmed his view 498 No objection to lines 1-3 499 501 Declining enrollment based upon testimony of Carter No objection to lines -19-24 527, lines 4-11 No objection to lines 4-11 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 JolmiW. Walker. AR Bar N~. 64046 I/ ~ JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 7 4-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby ce1iify that a copy of the foregoing t1'ts been senroY/ax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this ~A,- day of ( ,Ll-{t, , 2002: Mr. Clay Fendley FRlDA Y, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRJGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Wo1ihen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l - /\ I ) L/ Mr. Dermis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A . 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIFJv1 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Robert Pressman -6- u::.~~ (1- . I,! -~ ll ,,,.,., ti""&gt; Us ~-- -, v1 ~ i::AsTE. . Ol~!Rity~ ,!._C&amp;.~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Rr.,o,.::.TRicr ~#~SAs EASTER.l"J DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 7 p 2nn-, WESTER.i"J DIVISION JAMES 1 ~ v J,;L By: IV. ,\lfcc0Rr~1A'"'1r ,..,. - \..o \, vLc:i~r( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 vVRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTN0.1 , ET Al RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 1 9 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE RESPONSE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension 1mtil August 26, 2002 to file their Proposed Findings of Fact and lugument in Opposition to the LRSD's Request for Unitary Stah1s Regarding the Plan Sections addressed in the hearings conducted from July 22 to July 24, 2002. The grounds for this motion are as follows: 1) Under the schedule established by the Court, the parties had from July 25, 2002 until August 19, 2002 (26 days) to file their responses. 2) The Joshua Intervenors did not receive the transcript of the hearing until the 13th day of this period, on August 6,2002, at approximately 5 :30 p.m. The transcript contains almost all of the evidence offered dming the hearings. 3) In view of the timing of receipt of the transcript, additional time is necessary to address the issues presented in this matter, issues of the highest importance for the City of Little Rock and its residents. 4) The requested extension would cause no apparent harm to the LRSD and the District's counsel have stated that they do not object to the Coun' s granting the requested extension. \VHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court extend the time for their submission in this matter until not later than August '.:6, 2002. Riob~-iPressma'r{,' Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 ~0"~\v~ Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 ' / ,1OHNW. WALKER,P.A. -1723 Broadway Little Rocle Arkansas 7'.2206 (501) 374-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ha~ been sent) ?Y fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on th.is / t., day of //t,. i . 2002: , C / \ Ivfr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . / j Mr. De1m1s R. H.a:risen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-34 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Jolu{W. Walker / RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2002 A OFFICE.OF ~ ESEGREGATIOU,WONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4: 82CV00866-WR W /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER ;~~E AUG 1 9 2002 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Joshua's motion for an extension ohime to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (filed today, August 16) is denied. While a short post-trial brief is certainly acceptable, I did not ask the parties for briefs. So that the preparation of a brief will not interfere with the timely filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the brief can be filed by 11 :00 a.m. on Monday, August 26, 2002. I feel certain that I made it quite clear, that absent highly unusual circumstances, the August 19 deadline would not be extended. In fact, I believe I backed up the deadline from 5 :00 p.m. on August 19 to 11 :00 a.m. I hate to ruin this weekend for counsel, but this is my ruling-request denied, except as it pertains to a post-trial brief. IT IS SO ORDERED this J61h day of August, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE V\/i lf/RU1-ft 58 A~D/OR~. 7FR9CP ON t l1L!? ?-- . bY__7, ,~c......,,..;....,....- ~&lt;L - 660 u.sfo1{Jm~CQRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS AUG r 9 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. I, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERJNE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED AUG 2 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee ("MRC") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 2001-2002 school year. Also before the Court is the MRC's request for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' proposed budget for the 2002- 2003 school year. The MRC communicated both budgets to the Court in a letter dated July 31 , 2002 ( attached). The Court will allow the parties ten days from the date of entry of this Order to object to the MRC' s final budget for 2001-2002. The Court will also allow the parties ten days from entry of this Order to object to the MRC's proposed budget for 2002-2003. Ifno objections are filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order approving the final budget for the 2001-2002 school year. If there are no objections, the Court will also enter an Order approving the MRC's proposed budget for 2002-2003 in anticipation that the MRC will file its final (actual) budget for the Court's review at the appropriate time. IT IS SO ORDERED this J.'i_ day of Augus~~~ - - THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON __j .Y-------~---;----~-- ---7""--'--~- ---===-=-- DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNMED :AJp "''" - CT JUDGE W!L~RUyE 58ANO/OR~~ /" , m~1Lf~,- BY~7,,c.~_.....- , 6 6 1 Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main. Street, Suite 1 01 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} July 31 , 2002 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: At its July 16, 2002 regular meeting, the Magnet Review Committee listened to a presentation by Little Rock School District and then discussed the interdistrict magnet schools' budget information for the Stipulation magnet schools. The presentation included the final figures for the 2001-02 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2002-03 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 1). No vote was taken at the meeting, and Magnet Review Committee representatives provided the information to their party for vote. A telephone poll was then taken, and the budgets were approved by the Magnet Review Committee by all parties with the exception of the Joshua Intervenors whose representative was hospitalized during budget discussions. FINAL 2001-2002 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $24,802,473.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of $6,473.00, calculated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,831.65 students. Actual attendance records of 3,809.89 students set the final budget figure at $24,621,107.00, and the final budget's per pupil expenditure reduced to $6,462.00, or $11.00 less per pupil than originally budgeted. This final budget reflects an increase of $612.00 per student over the 2000-2001 actual expenditures, and includes the first year of the two-year improvement plan which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee on June 5, 2001. This final 2001-2002 budget also reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2001. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. "Pursue the Possibilities of ,Uagnet School Enrollment" The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. -2- July 31 , 2002 PROPOSED 2002-2003 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total proposed budget for the 2002-2003 school year is $25,065,942.00, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $6,579.00 and an increase of $117.00 over the 2001-2002 actual expenditures. The increase in the per pupil expenditure includes the costs for the second year of the two-year improvement plan for the Stipulation magnet schools which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee in their meeting on June 5, 2001. Since Little Rock School District is in their third year of teacher contracts, the salaries, fringe benefits, insurance and other employee variables have already been calculated into this proposed budget. Again. included in the Summary portion of Draft 1 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 2001-2002 :finalized budget in the amount of$24,621,107.00, with a per pupil expenditure of $6,462.00, as well as the proposed 2002-2003 budget, both attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the quality of the Stipulation magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, Ll~LlJ?pldh ~di~ Mitchell,~~ Magnet Review Committee SM'DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2001-2002 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Proposed 2002-2003 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $466,336 $466 ,336 6.0 $488,260 STAFF 02 Asst.Prin . 10.0 $596,703 $648,136 9.0 $538,289 03 Specialists 40.2 $1 ,792,248 $1,753,532 40.2 $1,745 ,253 04 Counselors 13.4 $596,823 $580,713 13.4 $634,117 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $296,379 $293,841 6.5 $305,577 06 Art-Perf./Prod . 3.0 $106 ,264 $108,116 3.0 $112,502 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.6 $427,544 $432,970 7.6 $392,782 10 Special Education 9.2 $405 ,041 $396,336 9.2 $433 ,925 11 Gifted 5.4 $250,741 $250,731 5.4 $262,294 12 Classroom 191.8 $8,213 ,397 $8,313 ,748 191 .8 $8,639 ,729 13 Substitutes 0.0 $206,000 $238,047 0.0 $230,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 15.0 $616,631 $657,519 15.0 $658,501 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 308.1 $13,974,107 $14 ,140,023 307.1 $14.441 ,229 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 21.4 $603,031 $603,030 20.4 $538,805 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $245,615 $226.301 6.0 $238,020 17 Custodians 30.0 $462,045 $469,891 30.0 $494,072 18 Information Services 1.0 $54,348 $54,766 1.0 $56,503 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $180,971 $180,193 6.0 $184,840 20 Other-Aides 37.0 $414,622 $460,578 22.8 $439,521 21 Frinqe Benefits(20) xxlCi&lt;xx;i&lt;i( $3,964,711 $3,777,239 xxxxxxxk $4,209,662 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 101.4 $5,925,343 $5,771,997 86.1 $6,161,422 TOTAL (10-20) XXXXXX:l&lt;ii' $19,899.450 $19 ,912.021 xxxxxxi6( $20,602.651 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xiooixxxii' $533,877 $484.737 xxxxiooo( $409,472 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxxx' $40,600 $50,141 xxxxxxxi( $39.500 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxixi&lt;xxi $0 $0 xxxi(iooo( $0 25 Other XXXXX~l( $219,556 $211,221 xxxxi6ocx $146,581 TOTAL (30) xxxxxioo( $794,033 $746,099 xXXJiicxxx $595.553 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:&amp;io&amp;ii $2,000 $265 XXXi&lt;i&lt;*.x $1 ,200 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom xxxxio6o( $554,178 $561,699 xxxxx,~k $556.304 (40) 28 Media xxx:xx.i6oi: $44,100 $42,523 xxxxmot $49. 025 29 Other ~ : $240,368 $265,400 ;xx~; $256,463 TOTAL (40) ,- .. :--. -: -.- .-: 'XXJO&lt;X)00t $840,646 $869,887 'xxxioooo( $862,992 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx~xxxk $1,340,925 $1,278.872 i&lt;ioooooix: $1,079,371 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. 'xxx:iooo6( $0 $0 XXJOQ&lt;xxX $0 (50) 32 Other xi&lt;xxi&lt;xxX $0 $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $1 ,340,925 $1,278,872 xxxiixxxi( $1 ,079,371 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx: $18,400 $7,782 xxxxx&gt;ii:xic $1 o,9oo (60) 34 Other :xxxxxioo{ $0 $0 xxxxxxxi( so TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxi $18 ,400 $7,782 xxxxxxxx $10,900 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxioo( $2,994,004 $2,902,639 xxxxxioot $2,548 .816 TOTAL (10-60) 409.5 $22,893,454 $22,814,660 393.2 $23,151,467 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxi6ot $1 ,909.289 $1,806,447 xxxxxxxX $1,914.474 xxxxxxxx: . . $24,802;743 $24,621,107 xxxxxxxx &lt;&lt; $25,065,942 Magnet8udget0203MAGBKOJ.xls summ~rv/H/UH i// :::::: 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $146,503 $62,736 $96,083 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1,639 ,927 $1,630,271 $1 ,664,438 Vocational $32,800 $23,494 $32,800 Athletics $51,559 $51,532 $82,653 Gifted Proorams $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Reading $500 $415 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1 ,500 $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $1 ,909,289 $1,806,447 $1,914,474 Per.Pupil'CostT 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3,831 .65 3,809.89 3,809.89 Total Costs $24,802,743 $24,621 ,107 $25,065,942 Fu~ding sv soiirce 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 State of Arkansas $12,401 ,371 $12,309,755 $12,532,971 LRSO $7,778,140 $7,722,783 $7,860,679 PCSSD $3,013,533 $2,990,129 $3,045,512 NLRSD $1 ,609,698 $1 ,598 ,440 $1 ,626,780 Total Costs $24,802,743 $24,621,107 $25,065,942 MagnetBudget0203MAGBK03.xls ~Wi'r~1~~i?t~~m0m~17(PRf'sD),:::: 'i\0t;:02&lt; :. 01~02::c :: n: :n:01~02 :' 02,03\ &lt;&gt;&gt; 02.:as:::::::::: iET;' H \Proposed :n :.:::JAdua1 :)ET:E) : { LPf.i:fpose'd &lt; CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 78,368 $ 78,368 1.0 $ 82,856 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 60 ,653 $ 60,653 1.0 $ 62,345 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 325,990 $ 314,857 7.0 $ 326,629 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 90,561 $ 92,869 2.0 $ 98,060 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 50,698 $ 32,178 1.0 $ 34,151 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $ 106,264 $ 108.116 3.0 $ 112,502 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.3 $ 104,959 $ 104,959 1.3 $ 107,932 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 47,078 $ 47,078 1.0 $ 48,389 12 Classroom 31 .6 $ 1,310,270 s 1,301,316 31.6 $ 1,449,702 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 21,000 $ 33,493 0.0 $ 35,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $ 167,761 $ 228,076 5.0 $ 209,935 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 53 .9 $2.363 ,602 $2.401 .963 53 .9 $2,567,501 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 39,512 $ 38,583 2.0 $ 40,328 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 40.205 $ 40.205 1.0 $ 41,318 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 65.834 $ 62.444 4.0 $ 67,078 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9.058 $ 9.130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $ 97.920 $ 112,878 6.0 $ 111,922 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXX)()(XJ&lt;X S658.313 s 643 ,030 ~ $ 721 ,388 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.2 $9 10,842 $906.269 13.2 $991,453 TOTAL (10-20) ~ $3 ,274,444 $3,308,232 xx,dcxixxx $3,558,954 URCHASED 22 Utilities xx;iixxxxx: $ 70 ,544 $ 65 ,320 lxxxxx:boC: $ 65,379 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $ 10,000 $ 4,688 x~ $ 10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements i&amp;xfubJl $0 $0 ~~ $0 25 !Other .XJ0()()00(X. s 15.275 $ 23 .320 xxxXJ00ix $ 17.012 TOTAL (30) .iooooooo&lt;i S95.819 $93.327 xxxxxxxl( $92.391 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office xxxxxxi&lt;.X $0 so X)()O(XXiO( $0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom i&lt;)Ci()O(XXX $ 74.740 s 64 .777 xxxxxxxi( $ 77.236 (40) 28 Media io&lt;xxxxi&amp; $ 7.500 $ 6,160 xxxxxxxx $ 8,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx $ 51.113 $ 48 .359 io6ooci:xX $ 23 ,250 TOTAL (40) liooixx:io&amp; $133 .353 $119 ,296 xfuxxi&lt;if $108 ,486 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXX)(){XXX. $ 192.083 $ 189.148 xxxxxxi&lt;it $ 374,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxxxi so so : ~ . $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx $0 so XXXXX)OO(' so TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $192.083 $189 ,148 xxxxx:xxx: $374.000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxi&lt;xxxx . $ 2,500 $ 195 XXXXJ00()(' $ 2.500 (60) 34 Other :xxxxxxxxi so so xxxxxxxx so TOTAL (60) :xxxiooooC:: S2.500 $195 xxxxxx,6( $2.500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxxx $423.755 S401 .966 xxxxioixx $577.377 TOTAL (10-60) 69.1 $3 .698 .199 $3.710 .198 67 .1 $4,136.331 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxx~xx: S272.051 S287,129 XXXJO&lt;XXXi $270,748 .: GRANDTOTAL &gt;&lt; xxxxxxx: !::\! ) $3 ,970,25-0 ... ; &gt;&lt; S3;997';327 xxxxxxxx , ,: / $4;407;; 07 : Stipends $30,500 $31,625 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $235,932 $249,542 $254,772 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $152 $159 $159 Plant Services $4,604 $4,898 $4,898 Reading $72 $64 $77 Science $0 $0 $0 English $216 $230 $230 Special Education $575 $612 $612 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $272,051 $287,129 $270,748 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 551 .25 583.17 583.17 Total Costs $3,970,250 $3,997,327 $4,407,078 20.02-03:BUOGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) , &lt; 01-0-2\ .- : :: 01~02: . :-:- : -: :/H /i//01~02+&lt;' 02~0.3\ /?/)12~03, //: c~rii,~ Miit.inet Sctfool ., .. : : ' F,T:E,) . / proposed)) r::&gt;:Actua1,.: :.i:: F,T\ &lt;P.l'opo~~dH:. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 74,672 $ 74,672 1.0 $ 79,028 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 55 ,733 $ 55.733 1.0 $ 59,057 03 Specialists 8.0 $ 341 ,075 $ 335,274 8.0 $ 338.469 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 83 .122 $ 81 ,009 2.0 $ 87,538 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $ 51 ,594 $ 68,943 1.5 $ 70,859 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 so $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 0.0 so so 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 so $0 0.0 so 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 57,166 $ 63 ,805 1.5 $ 67,474 11 Gifted 1.4 $ 63.368 $ 63,358 1.4 $ 67,099 12 Classroom 21 .3 $ 776.272 $ 771 ,194 21 .3 $ 849,791 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 30 .000 $ 30 ,216 0.0 $ 32,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 5.0 $ 213,563 $ 213.563 5.0 $ 224,222 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.7 $1 ,746 ,565 $1,757,767 42.7 $1,875 .537 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 64.212 $ 65,786 3.0 $ 76,090 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 38 ,705 $ 30.717 1.0 $ 32.672 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 60 .923 $ 56 .233 4.0 $ 63.439 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $ 127,929 $ 131 ,568 4.4 $ 98,392 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxfu&amp;i $ 531,481 $ 506,792 )C(X)()~)()t $ 568,219 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $832 ,308 $800,225 12.6 $848,231 TOTAL (10-20) xxxi&lt;XX)O(:' SZ.578.873 52,557,992 xxxxioo&lt;. $2,723,768 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJO(X)OO(X , $ 57,257 $ 49.267 -xxxiooooc $ 52,173 SERVICES 23 Travel l0000&lt;XXX $ 12.000 s 9.350 XXXJOO&lt;:i&lt;)( $ 7,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxxxxxxx $0 so -~ $0 25 Other ~ s 10 .803 $ 14,385 l0000(;l(io( $ 13,320 TOTAL (30) xJOixxxxx S80.060 $73,002 xxx&gt;ooixk $ 72.493 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxx,oo( $0 $0 xxxxxiexx $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom i&lt;io&amp;xxxx s 74.280 $ 79.393 l&lt;JOO&lt;X:XXX: $ 73 ,941 (40) 28 Media ')()000()()0(' $ 9.000 $ 8,968 ~iot $ 13.100 29 Other )OOQ()(XXX $ 27 ,901 $ 30.062 . .X l0()()00(X. $ 24.033 TOTAL (40) XJOO()()()(X. S 111 ,181 S118.424 xxxxxxxi $ 111 ,074 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxxx $ 253.800 $ 261 .853 .xiaooo:xx $ 65 .200 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xio:xxxxx i $0 so xxxlOO(xxi $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxi(xx so $0 xxxxxxxii: $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx : S253.800 $261 ,853 XXXX)OO(X;' $ 65 .200 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )OO{)()()(j()( $ 2,000 $ 3,295 xxxroxX: $ 2.000 (60) 34 Other )00()00:;;,o( $0 so xxxJ&lt;XXioi., 50 TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx S2.000 $3 .295 xxxxxxxx $ 2.000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxix,( S457.041 S456.574 XJOO&lt;X:XXi( S250,767 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .9 $3 .035 .914 $3,014 ,566 55.3 $2,974,535 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxxx S249.080 $233,435 xxxxxx&gt;ixi $236.409 .. '&lt;..GRANDTOTAL . -... :: xxxxxxx ::::: ) S3.284;994 )\::: ' $3,248;00:1 :xx:xxxxxxi' :::: : ::: $3~210,944 c~rv.~r.H /\/)? '\ 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $26.463 $17,107 $15,643 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $217,439 $211 ,279 $215,707 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proorams $140 $135 $135 Plant Services $4,243 $4,147 $4,147 Readino $66 $54 $65 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $199 $194 $194 Special Education $530 $518 $518 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $249,080 $233,435 $236.409 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 508.04 493.75 493.75 Total Costs $3,284,994 $3,248,001 $3,210,944 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 73 ,036 $ 73,036 1.0 $ 77,260 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 55 ,601 $ 55.601 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 266.044 $ 251 ,648 6.8 $ 276,900 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 31 ,000 $ 40.343 1.0 $ 42,524 05 Media Soec. 1.0 $ 53 ,116 $ 52 .307 1.0 $ 54,599 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 SO 0.0 so 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 SO SO 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $ 89 .448 $ 87,264 2.0 $ 90,833 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 40 .616 $ 40 ,616 1.0 $ 42,805 12 Classroom 16.5 $ 70 1.377 $ 709,180 16.5 $ 724,169 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 14,000 $ 11 .094 0.0 $ 15,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 2.0 $ 87.050 $ 86.769 2.0 $ 90,530 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 32.3 $1,411 ,289 $1 ,407,858 31 .3 $1,414,619 15 Secretaries 1.4 $ 35,431 $ 28 .978 1.4 $ 32.000 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 37,713 $ 37 .517 1.0 $ 39,818 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 46,484 $ 48 .280 3.0 $ 49 ,324 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 6.6 $ 58 ,415 $ 53 ,891 3.2 $ 43,022 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxioiJ&amp; $407,532 $ 364 ,638 )00()()00()( $ 411 ,792 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.2 $594,634 $542,434 8.7 $585,374 TOTAL (10-20) XXX)00(XXi $2,005 .922 $1,950 .292 lOOO&lt;x-xxi( $1 ,999.994 PURCHASED 12-2--+U_t_ili_ti_es ________x _ JO_O O &lt;XX _x~_s_ __3 _1.6_3_3-t-$ __2 _4_._16_3--+x-_x.xx_x:xx.x-;~$---2-4~.7-1_5-i SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxioixx:' $ 2.000 $ 10.291 XXXXloixi( $ 2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxxxio.ixi( $0 $0 :xxxio&amp;i&lt;i( $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other xxxxxxi&lt;i( $ 32.568 $ 8.201 xxxiodiio( $ 10,730 TOTAL (30) J0000&lt;Xi&lt;i( $66 .201 $42.655 xx:idoo:xi( $37,445 26 Principal's Office ooxlciiio( $ 1 .500 $0 'XXXXJOOO( S 1,000 27 Reqular Classroom xxxxxixk $ 34 .050 s 51 ,801 xxxxxxio( s 55.284 28 Media XXXJOOO&lt;X;' $ 3,500 s 1. 138 xxxiooi:iod s 3,500 29 Other xxxxxxxx s 75 .1 45 s 79 .004 :~ $ 27.685 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxi: $114. 195 $131 .943 xio(xioooci $ 87.469 30 Equipment XXXlOOOQ( . $ 254 .554 $ 244,662 XXXJOOOOC. $ 150.341 31 Buildino Repair. etc. xxixxxxx so so xxxx.Jooo( $0 32 Other ~xxxxx $0 $0 x xxxi&amp;xx : $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $254,554 $244.662 x xxxiod&lt;x $ 150,341 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx s 3,ooo s 1.284 xxxxiooix s 1,500 34 Other XXlOOO'.xx $ o $ o xxxxxxx,( $ o TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx $3 ,000 $1,284 xxxxxxxx $ 1,500 TOTAL (30-60) XJOO&lt;xxi&lt;x $437 .950 $420.544 .XXJ&lt;xx:i(~.i( $276.755 TOTAL (10-60) 44.5 $2,443.872 $2,370 .835 40.0 $2 .276.749 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxxx $198.014 $139.360 XXX)()(Xi&lt;i( $188.118 : &lt; GRANDT OT:AL' ::. xxxlOCXJC / ; $2~641,886i &gt; : S2;510;1.95 . xx.xxxxxx :/(:$2~464;86.Gi Stipends $65,440 $4,451 $50,440 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $129,490 $131,761 $134,522 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $83 $84 $84 Plant Services $2,527 $2,586 $2,586 Rea di no $39 $34 $40 Science $0 $0 $0 English $118 $121 $121 Special Education $316 $323 $323 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $198.014 $139,360 $188,118 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 302.55 307.92 307.92 Total Costs $2.641 ,886 $2,510,195 $2.464.866 2002-:03 BUD&lt;3c~ PROPOSAL(DRAFT:1) -:, ,:: , / :.01;;02/ //i&lt; D1 }2 H /\i :::::H"Qt~o2.:::::: :=: 02;;03\ :.=::: = oi:o3 = :: Wllliams.-/v1agnet School :- . .- &gt; . .-, _-. _. .: ? &lt; ET,E,/ &gt; Priii:idse.d; \ ::\\Acttia:I //. ,;:i:Fff;E/ &gt;::f'r'ooosed:&gt;, CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 81,976 $ 81 ,976 1.0 $ 84,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 52.481 $ 52.981 1.0 $ 60,557 03 Specialists 5.0 $ 244,846 $ 244,683 5.0 $ 251,669 04 Counselors 1.4 $ 38,750 $ 34,304 1.4 s 64,565 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 44,260 s 43,702 1.0 $ 46 ,565 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 so $0 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 so so 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.1 $ 43,157 $ 43.432 1 .1 $ 45,183 11 Gifted 2.0 $ 99,679 s 99,679 2.0 $ 104,001 12 Classroom 20.0 $ 840 ,860 $ 858,576 20 .0 s 859,254 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 28 .000 s 25,614 0.0 $ 28,000 14 Other-Kinderoarten 3.0 $ 148.257 s 129,111 3.0 $ 133,814 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 S1 .622 .266 $1 ,614,058 35 .5 S1 .677,863 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 65 .041 $ 63,421 3.0 $ 66,364 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 50 .775 s 50,775 1.0 $ 52,192 17 Custodians 3.5 s 49,997 $ 48,074 3.5 $ 53,838 18 Information Services 0.2 s 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $ 47,312 $ 42,424 4.8 $ 59,039 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ioooo&lt;xxx $461 ,695 $ 410,932 xxxiodixx $ 469,708 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.7 $683 ,877 $624,755 12.5 $710,559 TOTAL (10-20) ioooooooc $2.306 .144 S2.238 .814 ioooocxio( $2,388,422 PURCHASED 22 Utilities X)(X)OOO()( $ 49 ,142 s 39,058 xxxxxxxi( $ 45.129 SERVICES 23 Travel X)00()QO(X: $ 3.000 $ 3.902 )00{)()0(){)(. $ 5.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements ~ $0 $0 XXXXXXXX: $0 25 Other XX:XJOOO&lt;X $ 20 ,780 $ 15.386 -~xi $ 17.849 TOTAL (30) XXXlOOO&lt;Xi'. $72,922 $58.346 :~ $ 67,978 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office xlOOO&lt;XXX $0 $0 XXX)OOO(X : $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom XJOOO:xxx $ 77,415 $ 71 ,709 XXlOOOO&lt;X $ 76 .100 (40) 28 Media xxxiixxxx.: $ 4,600 $ 6.824 'XXXJOO&amp;x' $ 4.600 29 Other iioooooooc:: $ 61 ,411 $ 67,015 xxxxx:xxx $ 63.527 TOTAL (40) )()(;X)0000(:. $143,426 $145.548 xxioooixx $ 144,227 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XX:XXlOOO( $ 127.050 s 135,292 xxxio&amp;xx: $ 106.800 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. i&lt;ioooooix. $0 $0 xxxxxxxx:: $0 (50) 32 Other :xxx)O(;X)O&lt;'. $0 $0 'xxxi66ooc:: $0 TOTAL (50) i&lt;xxxlo:xx:. $127,050 $135,292 i&lt;xxl&lt;XXi&lt;X j $ 106,800 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ioooocxxx $ 1,500 $ 1,093 xxxxxxio( $ 1,500 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxxxx $0 TOTAL (60) xxxxxix;,C: $1 .500 $1 ,093 xioooo&lt;xx $ 1.500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxxx $344,898 $340,279 xxxxx:xxx $320,505 TOTAL (10-60) 50.2 $2.651,042 $2.579,093 48.0 $2,708.927 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) XXXX)OO(X:. $210.444 $196.499 xxxxxxxx. $208.875 : &gt;&gt;GRAND TOTAL &gt; xxxxxxx; .-. : ::$2,861-,48'6:' &lt;:;: - $2,775;592 XXXXXXXX : , : --- &lt;: : : $2;9'17;802: 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $10,000 $1 ,623 $10,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $195,782 $190,328 $194,317 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proqrams $126 $122 $122 Plant Services $3,820 $3,736 $3,736 Readinq $60 $48 $58 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $179 $175 $175 Special Education $4 78 $467 $467 xxxxxx x.xxxxx Total Line Items $210.444 $196.499 $208,875 Per P.t.iowcostH&lt; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 457.44 444.79 444.79 Total Costs $2,861.486 $2,775,592 $2,917,802 Q1sQ2 :;:;:-:: \ 02:-03/ J\i:\02~03&lt;:// ..,=: Adliiit: :: &lt; F;T:E&gt;i H&gt;P.rcip(isid :/: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $72,676 $72,676 1.0 $76,900 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $176,705 $227,638 3.0 $156,888 03 Soecialists 3.6 $163.370 $164,345 3.6 $134,194 04 Counselors 3.0 $149,517 5145,587 3.0 $156,487 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $53,116 $53 ,116 1.0 $54,599 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreiqn Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 2.6 $132.513 $133,962 2.6 $138,640 10 Special Education 1.3 $63,233 $65.323 1.3 $69,290 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 49.8 $2.087,522 $2,170,720 49.8 $2,189,224 13 Substitutes 0.0 555,000 $78,616 0.0 $60,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.3 $2,953,651 $3,111,983 65.3 $3,036,222 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $132.784 $128,608 5.0 $126.526 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $41,496 $30,366 1.0 $33,222 17 Custodians 6.0 S79,465 $96 ,858 6.0 $93.824 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,058 $9,130 0.2 $9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $31,361 $32,113 1.0 $33,284 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $32,502 $49,399 2.4 $52,900 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ $797,21 3 $837,646 x~ $878,574 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,123,879 $1,184,120 15.6 $1 ,227,749 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxxi( $4.077.530 S4,296, 103 -~ . $4,263.970 PURCHASED 22 Utilities .xxxi&lt;xxxi( S150,786 $149.815 xx:xi&lt;icoo::: $48,500 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxioooc: ' 53.000 $9.496 x~ S4.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxi&lt;x $0 $0 i&lt;xxxloiio( $0 25 Other xxxxxm S63.345 $73,793 XXJ()(J(XXi( $50,160 TOTAL (30) xxxxx,oo&lt;' S217.131 $233 ,104 .xxxio&amp;xx $102.660 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office l&lt;.XXXXX)(k. $0 $0 XXlOO(;)O(X. $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom xxxxx:ioo( S100.988 $107.387 XXXXJ&lt;XXX: $79,505 (40) 28 Media $7,500 $6.399 ~ ' $4,425 29 Other Xl&lt;XXJ000f $16,016 $21.443 joooo&lt;xxx: $108,888 TOTAL (40) $124.504 $135.228 XXlO&lt;XXXx-: $192.818 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxi&lt;x'' S238,607 $209.170 xx.xxxxxx S291.430 OUTLAY 31 Buildino Repair. etc. :xxi&lt;xxxxit $0 $0 xxxxxxi&lt;x: $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx: $0 so xxxxxxxx : $0 TOTAL (50) ,xxxxxxxxi $238.607 $209,170 -XJ00000()(: 5291,430 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXXXXXX': $2.000 $870 .)()()()(XXXX: $1 .000 (60) 34 Other $0 $0 xxxxxxxx: $0 TOTAL (60) xxxxxx,o( S2.000 $870 XXJ&lt;XXJ(io( $1 .000 TOTAL (30-60) XXXJOQOO( S582.242 $578,372 xxxxxxxx. $587.908 TOTAL (10-60) 80.9 $4.659.772 $4.874,475 80.9 $4,851 ,878 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ,XXXXX:XXJC $417.384 $399,312 xxxxxxxx $427.346 xxxxxxic " S5,077; 1.S6': )&gt; SS;273;787 icicxxx:xx !\:/ i SS,279,225 1 Stipends $8 ,100 $1 ,508 $4,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $365,944 $358,611 $366,127 Vocational $13,936 $9,943 $13,881 . Athletics $20,924 $20,910 $34,980 Gifted Proorams SO $0 $0 Plant Services $7,141 $7,039 $7,039 Reading $112 $91 $110 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $335 $330 $330 Soecial Education $893 $880 $880 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $417,384 $399,312 $427,346 Per Pifoii cost 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 855.02 838.06 838.06 Total Costs $5 ,077.156 $5 .273,787 $5 .279,225 Per Pupil Ci:isti'/ 200203 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) ': : 01~02i ' /(; Ot--02&lt;\/ ///01~02 / , \ 02~03,i ,, \:!02~3: // Pa~kview.-Magnet Sch'ool : :. ., ' -F~T;E/ :}/Pr:oposed / &lt;&gt; Actual &gt; :. F.T;E., //Proposed\( CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $85,608 $85,608 1.0 $87,960 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $195,530 $195,530 3.0 $199,442 03 Specialists 9.8 $450,923 $442,725 9.8 $417,393 04 Counselors 4.0 $203,873 $186,601 4.0 $184,944 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $43,594 $43 ,594 1.0 $44,804 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 5.0 $295,031 $299,008 5.0 $254,142 10 Special Education 2.0 $47,078 $31 ,553 2.0 $53,213 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 52.6 $2,497,097 $2,502,762 52.6 $2,567,589 13 Substitutes b.O $58,000 $59,013 0.0 $60,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 78.4 $3,876,734 $3,846,394 78.4 $3 ,869,487 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $266,050 $277,654 6.0 $197.498 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,721 $36,721 1.0 $38,798 17 Custodians 9.5 $159,341 $158,002 9.5 $166,569 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,058 $9,119 0.2 $9,408 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $149,610 $148,080 5.0 $151,556 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $50,544 $70,418 2.0 $74,246 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ i $1 ,108,477 $1 ,014,201 ~ $1,159,982 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 24.7 $1 ,779,802 $1,714,194 23.7 $1 ,798,057 TOTAL (10-20) x~ $5,656,536 $5,560,589 ~ $5 ,667,544 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~ $174,515 $157,114 ~ $173,576 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $10,600 $12,415 ~ $11 ,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other ~ $76,785 $76,136 ~: $37,510 TOTAL (30) ~ $261 ,900 $245,665 ~ $222,586 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office i6oo&lt;l&amp;x $500 $265 ~ $200 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom ~ : $192,705 $186 ,632 ~ $194,238 (40) 28 Media i&lt;xi&lt;ic&amp;x $12,000 $13,033 xiooooo&lt;X' $15,400 29 Other ~ : $8,782 $19 ,516 ~ . $9,080 TOTAL (40) ~ s213,987 s219,447 xx~ s218,918 CAPITAL 30 Equipment x;ioooooc: $264,831 $238 ,747 ~ $91 ,600 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. i&lt;XxxxxX: $0 $0 ~ : $0 (50) 32 Other ~ $0 $0 ~ : $0 TOTAL (50) JOCXi&lt;)i;Xif $264,831 $238,747 ~ $91,600 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXJ(X)(X s7,4oo $1 .045 x.xxxxioo&lt; s2.400 (60) 34 Other xxxxioof so so xioo6ooo&lt;, so TOTAL (60) xxxx.xxx $7,400 $1 ,045 XXXJQOO(X $2,400 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $748,118 $704,904 XXX~XXX: $535.504 TOTAL (10-60) 103.1 $6,404,654 $6,265,493 102.1 $6,203,048 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx S562,317 s5so,712 xxxxxxxx $582,978 ' _._.,_,,,, 'G.RAND TOTAL!''" : &gt; . 2001-02 2002-03 Stioends $6,000 $6,423 $6,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $495,340 $488,750 $498,993 Vocational $18,864 $13,551 $18,919 Athletics $30,635 $30,621 $47,673 Gifted Programs $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $9,666 $9,594 $9,594 Readinq $151 $124 $150 Science $0 $0 $0 Enalish $453 $450 $450 Soecial Education $1 ,208 $1 ,199 $1 ,199 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $562,317 $550,712 $582,978 PerPli:pi!Cost): 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 1,1 57.35 1,142.19 1,142.19 Total Costs $6 ,966,971 $6,816,205 $6,786,026 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EA.STER."J\i DISTRJCT OF ARK.A_N"SAS '\VESTEfu"J DIVISION I,.JTTLE ROCK SCI;IOOL DISTRJCT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. l, ET AL :tvffi.S. LORENE JOSHU.~ ET AL KATHERil\TE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED AUG 1 9 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFEND.ANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD'S REQUEST FOR UNITARY STATUS REGARDING THE PLAN SECTIONS INTRODUCTION This case is before the Court upon the LRSD' s motion to be released fi:~m Court supervision and to be released from its remedial obligations to African American students. Upon the liability findings of the District Court in 1987 and in earlier proceedings, the first remedial agreement occurred in 198 9 and was approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990. Between 1990 and 1998, the District Court, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, oversaw remedial proceedings and, as directed by the Court of Appeals, appointed and involved an Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) staff to assist with achievement of the objectives of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. After repeated hearings before the Court, and upon the urging of the District Court, in January, 1998 the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors entered into a Revised Desegregation and Education Plan before the Court - the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Revised Plan was intended to A: 1JOSHUA..OPP -1- implement the original remedy of school desegregation ordered by the Court. The Revisep Desegregation Plan was to be a minimum of three (3) years in duration and its terms of expected action were generally set forth therein. It was amicipated that upon compliance the school District would petition, with approval of the Joshua Imervenors, the Court for release of the District from Court supervision. The predicate for release was substantial compliance with commitments set forth therein andotherwise required by law as well as ancillary agreements entered into on behalf of the Joshua class between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Department of Education. The District developed a Compliance Committee which consisted of the school superintendent and his senior staff of associate superintendents. The Compliance Committee was assisted by District counsel during its deliberations. The Joshua. Intervenors were not invited or allowed to participate in Compliance Committee deliberations or activities. The District employed two experts with - Joshua's. approval to assist the District in devising remedies as set forth in the Revised Plan, Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross. The experts were not participants of the Compliance Committee. Ultimately, the Compliance Committee developed the Compliance Report dated March 1:5, 2001 which is now before the Court after a second set of hearings before the Honorable William R. "Bill" Wilson. The first set of hearings occurred in Juiy, August and November of2001 and were overseen by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief District Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas. The LRSD moved for her recusal in October, 2001. The Court denied recusal. l.Jltirnately, these proceedings were scheduled for January, 2002 but they were delayed upon motion ofJoshua. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright decided in January, 2002 to withdraw as the judge in this case and the case was assigned to the Honorable William R. "Bill" Wilson. A:1JOSHUA.OPP -2- l L !, : .J~t Wilson scheduled and held hearings during July, 2002 upon the objections raised by Joshua IC the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. After the hearings, the Court required the parties to 3ubmit contemporaneous findings of fact and conclusions of law and/or statements in further ~-t'!--'u --.: of the parties ' respective positions to the Coun by 1100 a.m., August 19, 2002. This filing repr ,nts the Joshua Intervenors' compliance with the Court's directive. It also summarizes the rebuttal evidence presented byJ oshua through Ms. Ann 11larshall. The ; -ovisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998 wl1.ich are now before the ..:.,,:.:: for review and decision are Sections 2.1, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11, 2.11.1. These sect1 ~dress, among other topics, the obligation to take steps to increase participation of qualified Ai.. an American students in advanced and enriched courses to ensure that there are no barriers to such participation, and to implement programs promoting the success of the students in these courses. These parts of the Plan also address increased participation in extracurricular activities, pn i ion of guidance counseling services in a nondiscriminatory manner and "more equity in academic h _.-.,rs, awards and scholarships." The Joshua Intervenors emphasize the importance of giving attention to the overall picture ,vhich it portrays regarding the System's good faith and other matters. Good faith requires conscious intent by the school District to take actions which promote the ultimate . t,-...,,~ve:-- of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plari. We submit that the ultimate object1 ves of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan necessarily include elimination of the vestiges of rc.cial discrimination and the replacement of those vestiges with policies, programs, practices and procedures which do not lead to resegregation. Joshua submits that the actions of the school district, 2 __ vn in the proceedings before Judge Wright and Judge vVilson, demonstrated that the District -;.1ot acted in good faith in meeting the obligations which are set forth in the A: 1JOSHU4.. OPP January, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. I. THE TESTIMO:NY OFODMDIRECTORA1"i"NlVLI\.RSHALLREBU.TS THE LRSD'S POSITION REGARDING EVALUATIONS Al~ OTHER ELEMENTS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION :tvis. Marshall testified that when the March 15, 2001 Report was presented, the evaluation documents were not available as r~presented therein. [Tr. at 15] Many of the evaluations are still not locatable, especially the final reports [Tr. at 16-17] and could not have been approved by the school board. Dr. Lesley, whose Division of Instruction was responsible for program evaluation, complained to Ms. Marshall about the LRSD s lack of program evaluations as represented in the Report. [Tr. at 18 (Marshall)] She and Lesley agreed that the quality of the reports was not good. [Tr. at 33] Marshall stated that the District did not mal,;:e "annual evaluations" of all programs as LR represented would occur. (Section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Tr. at 20-22] Nor did LR make "annual assessments" of all programs or an annual "listing of programs" by the assistant superintendent to be assessed annually. [Tr. at 3 7, 39] She further stated that the school district developed a "Research Agenda" which further unilaterally narrowed the evaluation requirements of the Plan. The programs which were included in the research agenda were not completed. [Tr. at 3 6] She also stated that the ODM did not any evaluations of programs on behalf of the LRSD. [Tr. at She testified that LRSD staff whom she met with understood the term "assessment:' when used in the Plan to mean evaluations. Joshua reiterates therefore that the LRSD did not comply with the Plan commitments that it evaluate annually all programs from an effectiveness perspective in order A:\JOSII'c.JA OPP -4- to determine their efficacy in meeting plan objectives. Joshua now. proceeds to address the areas on which the Court allowed the development of evidence duri_ng the July, 2002 hearings. Joshua now proposed the following facts : A. The Good Faith Requirement of the Section 2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. With respect to Section 2.1 , good faith, the Interim Compliance Report does not address that subject The March 15, 2001 Compliance Report purports to state what the District will do upon unitary status being declared; what has been done by campus leadership teams in the schools; and awards which the District has received known as the Arkansas Quality Award. It does not in the body of the report address the objective ofremedyingthe effects of past discrimination and ensuring that for the future racially discriminatory practices will not be reinstituted. Moreover, the District did not develop a policy with respect to this provision. B. The Obligations to Identify Qualified African American Students and to Promote their Successful Participation in AP and Other Honor and Enriched Courses I. The District's March 2000 and 2001 Compliance Reports 1. The Interim Report indicates that the school shall be active in identifying students for placement for Pre-AP and AP courses. (Interim Report, p. 20). At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses include multiple factors such as "l. High-level reading comprehension and wTiting skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performa.i.'lce" and "4. 'B' average and above in regular-level class." [CX. 719 (Reg. IHCC-R); [Tr. at 49 (Norman)]; [Tr. at 560 (l Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that ther:eafter there would be, basically, a free choice A: lJQSh.u...4. OPP -5- assignment into advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman); [Tr. at 473 , 498 (Carter)] 2. The District represents that it approved five new policies which were to ensure that there would be no barriers to African American student participation in advanced courses. (See Interim Report p. 17) Policy IHCC addressed training programs for teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging increasing "percentages" of students to participate in advanced placement courses. Policy IHBB addressed "assessing gifted potential through program designs that are flexible and varied enough to be adaptable to individual student need and through curricular designed to nurture gifted potential. Policy IKC addressed calculating grade point averages and rank and class. Policy IKF established enhanced course requirements with a total of twenty-four required units and increased the rigor of the curriculum Policy IHBEA addressed English as a second language. 3. Joshua submits that none of these policies addressed the subject of identifying and encouraging African ivnerican students to participate in advanced placement courses other than possibly Policy IHCC, the Professional Development Program for Teachers and Counselors. Even IHCC does not address the matter ofidentifying and encouraging increasing "percentages" of African A... merican students . 4. Policy IHBB is very general. Policy IKC does not address the issue ofrace. Policy IKF addresses increasing the units required for graduation and stiffens the requirements for honors at graduation time. Policy IHBBA does not apply to African .Americans although the District says that there are several students with African backgrounds who may profit by the English as a second language pro gram. 5. The 2001 Report indicates that Policy IKF "raised the bar" even higher so that instead of twenty-four units being required to graduate, students were expected to complete twenty-eight units A: ;JOSHUA.OPP -6- r :i including at least eight Pre-.AP or AP courses. "Raising the bar" has not been shown by the District as a program, policy, practice or procedure which reasonably could be expected to either identify or encourage African American students to participate in advanced courses, or to assist them in being successful in advanced courses. Instead "raising the bar" in the manner the LRSD did became a "barrier'; itself for African American children because of their dismal success on the measurement barometers. 6. The 2001 Report content on pp. 3 0-31 does not demonstrate how .A..frican .American students are benefitted by these policies. 7. The Interim Report identifies Administrative Regulation IHCCR as being ,witten to promote the "percenta2:e" of African .A.rn.erican students who enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses. The 2001 Compliance Report does not address Regulation IHCCR. No data are presented to show how this procedure has worked in practice between October 2 l and March 15, 2001. The other regulations are IKC-R, IKF-R2 but they do not address issues relating to African American students in particular. IKC-R addresses rank in class and IKF-R2 relates to general graduation requirements. Both regulations appear to give advantage to white pupils in AP programs. 8. The 2000 Report (CX. 869 at 22-23) that the District v1ill utilize a Quality Index to promote enrollment of African American students in advanced courses in order to make "data driven" decisions. The District further represents that the Quality Indicators are routinely disaggregated "so that progress for each group can be determined." The Quality Indicators for the high schools were not presented in the 2001 Report except for the percentages of students taking the ACT The percentage of students taking the .AP makes no reference at all to the race of AP examinees [e.g. 4 3] Moreover, the District did not present the number of minority students earning a score "19" on the A: \JOSJ:FUA. OPP -7- ACT as promised in the Interim Report. The "average scores" of racial groups are presented; but the number of A.!,.,. stuqents who score "19" or above is not presented. [e.g. 48-49] 9. Disaggregated racial data were also promised with respect to students who earned at least "3" on AP exams. The District did not do this. [ e.g. 44] The data presented included "percentage" of students earning a "C" or above in AP [ e.g. 44] and Pre-.A.P courses in middle and high schools and the University Studies Progra.i:n for one year only. [ e.g. 44-4 7] 10. The District is also remiss in presenting data promised in the 2000 Report regarding the Quality Indicators set forth on page 23 [CX. 869] in its Report of March 15, 2001. For example; reference is made in the 2000 Report regarding the "percentage" of students who perform at the "Advanced" level on the Grade 4 benchmarks examinations in literacy and math. [p . 237; see also Tr. at 540] The data presented addresses the "at or above proficient rather than, as promised, the "advanced" level, p. 103 (literacy); p. 131 (math). 11 . The data are not disaggregated with respect to gender. The data would allow consideration of the e)ctent to which African American males students fare within the District. 12. Vfhen the District did not present data regarding Advanced students it prevented the parties from malcingjudgments regarding the e)..'ient to which African .American students were being compared to other students. Being "at or above proficient" does not disclose the relative relationship benveen non African .American students in comparison to African American students. Moreover, the 2000 Report promised to disclose the "percentage" of students who performed in the top ouartile on the SAT9 in reading, language and mathematics. [p. 23] The 2001 report does not disclose the top quartile student performances on the SAT9. The District, however, makes judgments regarding achievement for African A.mericrui students withot use of this "quality indicator." [ e.g. p. 104-105; A:'JOSHUA.OPP -8- t 1...,,, lLli::!.] .J .J ' ' ' 13. Of the. pre grams that were identified in the Interim Report, reference is made by the District to a new middle' school curriculum but the District has always had a specific curriculum for , each grade level. A ,,. curriculum for middle schools was required because the District changed from a six-three-three em to a five-three-four system in 1997. The purported new curriculum was neither developed or intc1ded for, _African American students. The National Science Foundation Project was listed as a program but in the final report no reference is made to the National Science Foundation results. There 'S no showing that it has increased .African .tvnerican participation in AP courses. 14. The Un;,,0 r~; ..... " ies Program at Hall High School is identified but it does not address African American student:... Rather it seeks to "target" strong students who have the capacity of doing "college work." By its terms, African American students are not targeted I To be eligible for enrollment "strong" students 1 ust have either a minimum grade point average of 2. 5 on half of their college preparatory course_ - 2 minimum grade point average of3 . O; or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. The 2001 , rt with the disaggregated data presented by the District shows the race of the average student with a score of21 on the ACT to be white or Asian. Black students are almost four numbers below tha, score. Moreover, the District did not present any charts which showed the number of studen- ~ at 3all who made minimum grade point averages of 2. 5 on at least half of their college preparator, 1rses nor did it enumerate in a chart the number by race of"strong students who have the capacity o doing college work." The Universitv Studies Program_ therefore. tended to favor the stronger sti;,:ients with the better grades. the higher test score averages with means which is another wav of sa .11.: 2: that it favored white students! A:VOSHUA.OPP -9- 15. Page 15 of the 2001 Report reflects the enrollmem by race in the University Studies Program. What began as a majority Black enrollment evolved in one year to clearly a majority white enrollment taken from within a majority Black school. As is shown throughout these :findings, this result could have been anticipated because of the financial costs associated with participation in the University Studies Program. Those costs constitute a barrier to participation. We note that now that the program includes most of Hall'~ white children, the plan is for the course grade to be weighted. [Tr. at 110 (P. Watson)]. 2. The Evidence at the Hearing 16. Dr. Steven Ross is one of the two experts approved by the Joshua Intervenors and hired by the Little Rock School District pursuant to Section 2.1.1 of the Revised Plan. Dr. Ross is a Professor of Educational Research and Director for the Center of Research and Educational Policy at the University of Memphis. Dr. Ross is deeply involved in working with school districts, primarily urban school districts, on how to develop and to evaluate programs and how to address the needs of children at-risk. He has worked with the Memphis, Nashville, Detroit, Atlanta and Little Rock school districts. [Tr. at 538-54l(Ross)] 1 7. Dr. Ross identified an educationally reasonable approach to promoting participation by qualified African American students in advanced placement and other enriched courses and implementing programs to assist these students to be successful. He defined a "qualified" student as "a student who has a reasonable chance of benefitting, a reasonable chance of success." Identifying such students would involve use of "archival data in Little Rock that would have shov.,n the success rates of students in advanced placement courses, in honors courses that are at different levels of achievement on the state test," as well as 1;be views of principals and curriculum specialists A: 1JOSHUA.OPP -10- in the District "who have had experience with African American students and white students who are at lower or higher ynds of the continuum on ability, with suggestions for what type of students ... " would have a reasonable chance of success if admitted to an advanced class. With this "combination of science and reason" he would try to help the school system" to develop some selective cutoffs or some systematic approach for decidingwhichAfrican_American students were, "qualified, which were likely to benefit". For students with test scores at the lower end on statema11dated standardized tests, his advice would be admit them to advanced classes ''on a more selective level," that is .. considering factors such as prior grades, family support, and motivation. [Tr. at 542-547 (Ross)] 18 . In the context of section 2. 6.2 of the Plan, addressing "implement[ ation] [ of] programs to assist African Americans in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses, " Dr. Ross gave the following testimony [ Tr. at 548]: My approach would be, for students who are entering a course, in advanced course or an honors course, AP course or advanced course, to ensure=-the J(!rm ]Ve use in educational psychology is scaffolding meaning support, because the histmy th.at that student who is at basic hash.ad is struggling to succeed in a regular course. Imagine if you struggle to run a mile, and then all of a sudden you asked to run five miles. Chances are you are not going to do better at that five mi !es; you are going to struggle more. So I would want to provide support systems that can do everything possible to ensure that students who we consider qual~fied can benefit. Examples would be Saturday classes, which cn'e used in a lot cf districts, extended day, peer coaching, smaller class sizes, computer -assisted instruction that gives extra support, programs with families where parents are not taught to tutor, but parents are taught how to help their children get the work done at home, courses on how to study. Th.ere 's a range of support systems that can increase the chances that an at risk child or adolescent can do well in advanced courses. 19. Dr. Ross testified that he wound not advocate placing students at the lowest leveis of state test courses into advanced placement courses without the kinds of programs he described. [Tr. A: VOSHUA. OPP -11 - at 549] 20. The approach described by Dr. Ross grows out of the provision in Section2.6 of the Plan for promoting participation of "qualified" African American students in advanced and .enriched courses a.rid the provision of Section 2.6.2 of the Plan which requires implementation of programs to assist these students "in being successful" in the enriched and advanced courses. The paragraphs which follow show: (a) the activiti~s required of the LRSD to promote additional participation of African American students in advanced programing were not carried out, or, were cursory in nature; (b) LRSD has not demonstrated an .increase in participation in advanced and enriched classes, comparing the totality of such programming prior to and during the Plan period; ( c) LRSD adopted, during the Plan period, criteria for admission to Pre-.4.P and AP classes which allow any student regardless of test scores and prior performance to select such classes, without an individualized consideration of the student's ability to benefit; and (d) LRSD had, during the Plan period, clearly inadequate "scaffolding" to assist lower performing students "in being successful" in advanced and enriched classes. 21 . The LRSD asserted that it fulfilled its obligation of "a training program during each of the neA'1 three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African American students participation .... " in advanced placement and honors and enriched courses. [Section 2.6.1] However, there was no evidence of such "a training program" for" teachers and counselors" "during of the .. three years of [the Plan.]"; [Tr. at 186-89 (Faucette)] 22. Ms. Patricia Watson has served as a guidarice counselor in the LRSD for approximately 28 years, 23 years at Central and 5 years at Hall. She was the lead counselor at Hall during the term of the Plan. [Tr. at 100] She did not recall any specific "training program" each year of the Revised A. 1JOSHUA. OPP -12- 1') f. - Desegregation and Education Plan which was designed to train "counselors in encouragmg pa.i.--ricipation of African American students" in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 101] Ms. Watson further testified that although the director of Guidance and Counseling for the LRSD conducted monthly in-service training sessions between 1998 and 2001 , she could not recall any training relating to encouraging participation of African Americans in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 103 -04] 23. When the subject matter of encouraging participation of i\frican American students in advanced and enriched courses was raised by a LRSD administrator, the presentation was brief and proforma [Tr. at 90 (C. Norman)]; [Tr. at 102 (P . Watson); [Tr. at 473 , 490 (J. Carter)] 24. Prior to the advent of the Revised Plan, and continuing through the first year of the Plan, the types of advanced and enriched programming offered in the LRSD included advanced placement classes, as well as honors and enriched classes. Effective with the second year of the Plan (1999- 2000), LRSD utilized the categories of"Pre-AP" and "AP"_to encompass the prior categories of AP, honors and enriched. [Tr. at 3 76, 11/20/01 (Lesley); CX. 869, p. 18, 29] An accurate determination of any progress in increasing participation of .African American students in advanced and enriched programming requires consideration of this change. Merely reclassifying students who were in honors and enriched classes as advanced classes does not qualify as real progress in attaining the goal of Section 2.6. The District did not cite any actions that it had taken to promote an increase in participation of .African .American students in advanced programs. The District's plan is to increase the number of AP courses and Pre-.41' courses that are available and to cutout other courses so that the result would be more students would be forced to take Pre-AP and AP courses. 25. As evidenced by p. 3 8 of the March, 2001 Report, the greatest numerical increase of African .A.merican pupils in .41' courses, 154, ocqmed when honors and enriched courses were ended A:'JOSHUA.OPP -13 - after the 1998-99 school year. At the same time, the "other" numbers increased by 160, from 936 to 1096. This mefil!S that the proportion of white students enrolled in .AP courses actually increased. The chart on p. 38 of the 2001 Report reflects that African American students assigned to .AP courses fell from 37% in 1997-98 to 35% in 2000-01. The reality therefore is that whatever changes took place in AP, the disparity which existed in 1998 continued at least through Ivfarch, 2001 . ' 26. At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre- .AP and AP courses included multiple factors such as "1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performance" and "4. 'B ' average and above in regular-level class." [CX 719 (Reg. IHCC-R; Tr. at 49 (Norman); Tr. at 560 (J. Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that thereafter there would be, basically, a free choice of the more rigorous advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman); Tr. at 473 , 498 (Carter)] 27. In 2000-01 , 65% of the enrollment in AP courses was white [Tr. at 74 7 (Lesley)] roughly double the proportion of white enrollment in the LRSD. The free choice approach promoted the attendance of additional white students in classes disproportionately white. 28. As indicated, Dr. Ross testified that the availability of a BROAD RANGE OF Sl.JPPORT PROGRAM ("SCAFFOLDING") IS A.N ESSENTIAL ELElVlENT OF AN INl:TIATIVE WHICH PLACES POORL YPERFORMING STUDENTS IN ADV A."NCED Ai"'i-U ENRICHED COURSES. See par. 18. LRSD vVRITTEN STA.l"IDARDS A.RE TO THE SAlvlE EFFECT [CX. 719, Policy IHBDi\., IHBDA-R, TIIBDA-R2]. However, LRSD's implementation fo its standards, required as to advanced and enriched courses by Section 2.6.2 falls short. (a) August 1, 2001 during the hearing conducted by Judge Wright, Associate A-VOSHUA.OPP -14- Superintendent for Instruction and Bonnie Lesley and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Sup.erintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of Student Academic Improvement Plans (Si\IPs), or other . . interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards. [Tr. 8-1-01 , at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (lviitchell); at 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] (b) The LRSD provided no information on the actual availability of SAIPs for poorly performing students entering .Pre-_A.P and AP courses during the term of the Revised Plan, during the most recent hearing. ( c) The support programs actually available for Pre-_A.P and AP students, identified at the hearing, were well short of those identified as necessary by Dr. Ross and the LRSD in regulation IHBDA-R. [Tr. at 93, 95, (C Norman); 49 1-92, .523, 524 (J. Carter); 563-68 (J. Mosby); 743-44 (Lesley)] C. The Obligation to Address Barriers to Participation In AP and Honors and Enriched Courses 29. During the .three-year Plan period, the four Associate Superintendents served as the District's Compliance Committee with respect to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs coordinated their efforts. The group was to oversee the overall compliance effort with the terms of the Plan, with each associate retaining primary- responsibility for those aspects of system operations within his/her normal area of responsibility. The compliance committee had the primary responsibility for the identification and removal ofbarriers to participation in advanced and enriched courses (and extracurricular activities). [Tr. at 130 (Babbs)]; A: \.JOSHUA. OPP -15- (See also Court Ex. 544; CX. Ex. 869 (March 2000 Report) at 1-2]. 3 0. The LRSD described the compliance committee and the responsibilities of the associate superintendents as follows in the March 2000 Compliance Report (at 1-2, emphasis added): The Associate Superintendents of Administrative Sen1ices, Instruction, Operations, and School Services and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent comprise the "Compliance cmd quality Assurance Committee. " The committee has responsibility for the development, implementation, oversig,1t, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program includes any programs, policies, and/or procedures iiecessmy to ensure that the District.f11[fills all of its obligations under the Revised Plan. n1e committee meets weekly to discuss compliance issues and to discuss plan implementation in their respective areas. The compliance philosophy is based cm internalizing the Revised Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For exmnple, the instruction division is responsible for integrating the Revised Plan's requirements into development of the curriculum, staff development, and other similar junctions of that division. 171e associate superintendent who heads the division is the responsible person for the components of the Revised Plan that me appropriate.for his/her division. Through the internalization of the philosophy and the integration of the Revised Plan into the District's structure, the respective divisions proactively monitor compliance. The associa~e superintenrjents are responsible for ta!ci.ng appropriate action with re.spect to incidents of non-compliance and taking steps to prevent.future similar incidents of non-compliance. a. The Limited Assignment of Black Teachers to Advanced and Enriched Courses 3 1. The LRSD administrators who studied the existence of potential barriers to greater African American participation in AP classes identified the paucity of African American teachers as relevant. [Tr. at 71-72, 694-95 (Lesley)]; See also [Tr. at 184-86 (Faucette)] .Although significant progress could have been made by the manner in which teachers were assigned to courses by principals, [Tr. at 695 (Lesley)]; [Tr. at 46 (Norman)]; [Tr. at 517 (Carter)], little or nothing has been done. In Central High School, the "flagship school" [Tr. at 612 (Daugherty)] most of the .AP A:iJOSHUA.OPP -16- teachers were white. [Tr. at 291-296 (R. Horton); Tr. at 321,323 , 324 (C. Mercer); Tr. at 336-37, 338-339, 3.53~( J. fyforcer)] Black teachers were excluded, almost entirely, from advanced English teaching assignments [Tr. at 175-76, 78, 179-80 (Faucette)] The LRSD touts its participation in the "Teacher of Color program." [Tr. at 671-72 (Lesley)] However, LRSD's evidence shows its participation in this non disuict sponsored program did not begin until the 2001-2002 school year. [Tr. at 736 (Lesley)] Moreover, the System could have only seven participants per year and the evidence was of high school placement of teachers only at Hall with, significantly, no participation at Central. [Tr. at 736-3 7 (Lesley)] [Ex. 826] . b. The Hostile Treatment of African American Students in Advanced Courses I 3 3. Black students emolled in Pre-AP and AP classes have been subjected to a variety of forms of harassment and other hostile behaviors by white teachers. [Tr. at 57., 70 (Norman); Tr. at - 102-3, 111-112 (P. Watson); Tr. at 291-93, 312 (R. Horton); Tr. at 321 -22 (C. Mercer)_; Tr. at 336- 38 (J. Mercer); Tr. at 401-406 (C. Payne); Tr. at 427-31 (D.J. Thames); Tr. at 440-442 (A. Thames)] Dr. Faucette also testified that counselors intentionally did not guide African American students into higher level classes. [Tr. at 208] 34. The impact of the harassment and hostile behavior identified in paragraph (33), supra, extends beyond the particular black student who is its victim. It is observed by other students in the class. Moreover, such incidents are a topic of discussion among students. [Tr. at 342 (J. Mercer); at 5 7 6 (J. Mosby)] The inevitable consequence of the harassment is to identify advanced and emiched courses as a hostile environment for black students and one which they should shun. [Tr. at 70 (C. Norm.an); Tr. at 632, 651-52 (Roberts)] A. 1JOSHUA.OPP -17- c. The Multiple Barriers to Access to the University Studies Prozram 3 5. The L~D and the university of _Arkansas at Little Rock jointly operate within the Hall High School facility the University Studies Program. Courses are "co-tau!Zht bv Hall Hi!Zh School teachers" and UALR personnel. [CX 869 (March 2000 Report) at 27] [underlining added for emphasis] This program began functioning in 1999-2000. Students are informed of this option on the course selection sheets distributed by the school system" Grade 11-12 students may take a variety of courses for which they receive both high and college credit." [March 2000 at 27] The program is recognized by the LRSD to provide advanced or enriched courses as described in Section 2.6 of the revised plan. [CX 870 (March 2001 Report) at 46; [Tr. at 734 (Lesley)] [Two teachers per course represent a strong commitment to promoting the academic achievements of already high achieving students.] 36. In order to emoll in this program, a student must pay for each course taken one half of the nonnal tuition charged for the comparable course at UALR and for related expenses. [Tr . at l 09- 110 (P . Watson)]; [Tr. at 730 (Lesley)] 37. "To be eligible to participate [in the University Studies Program], students must have a minimum grade point average of 2.5 on at least 50% of the college preparatory courses; or a minimum overall grade average of 3. 0; or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT." [March 2000 Report at 2 7] 38. The evidence cited in paragraphs 3~ through 37, infra, and 39 through 44, supra, shows that the program operates in a manner which promotes racial segregation within Hall High School, due in large part to the financial barriers created by the tuition and related expenses requirement and by the ACT score requirement. A. \JOSHUA.. OPP -18- 39. The enrollment of Hall High School was approximately 80 to 90% as of 2001 -2002 school year. [Tr. at 106 (P Wat son)] The racial makeup of the University studies courses was as follows in the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 : 99-00 00-01 Total Enrollment 136 162 AA(%) 79(58%) 57(35%) Non A.A.(%) In Cour ses 57(42%) 105(65%) 40. These data show ( a) in 2000-2001 the number of African American students participating declined by 22, 28%; (b) in 2000-2001 the number of non A.frican American students increased by 48, 60%; (c) in 1999-2000, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by two times; ( d) in 2000-2001, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by three times; ( e) the in-school segregative effect of the program greatly increased in the second year of its operation. [March 2001 Report at 46] 41. TheLRSD reported ACT results by race for the years l. 997-1998; 1998-1999; 1999-2000 in the March 15, 2001 Report. [at 48] These data show that the average "composite score" (on the four sections of the ACT for white students for the three school years was respectively; 22.2, 22.5. and 21. 5. In contrast, the average "composite score" for African American students for these three years was 17.2, 17.2, and 17.3. These data provide some evidence the ACT of the alternative criterion for entry into the University Studies Program had significant racial impact. 42. The LRSD did not include in either the March 2000 or March 2001 Report data on grade point averages at Hall High School which would allow an analysis of the racial impact if any of the GPA standards selected for use in admission to the University Studies Program. A:JOSHUA .. OPP -19- 43 . Two types of evidence in the record provide a basis for concluding that the racially - segregated enro~ent of the University Studies Program is attributed at least in part to the requirement that students pay partial tuition. (a) Povehy Index in LRSD - According to an exhibit offered in this case by the LRSD, in the three years of the Revised Plan, 68% of the Black students enrolled in the District and 22-24% of the white students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Court Ex. 73 l (b) Many witnesses agree9 that the tuition requirement would have a racial impact in the LRSD in view of the pattern of family income by race. [Tr.110 at 110 P. Watson)]; [Tr. at 532(J. Carter)]; [Tr. at 602 (Strickland)]; [Tr. at 605-610(Daughtery)]; [Tr. at 624-627(Roberts)]; [Tr. at 732 (Lesley)] 44. The March 200 l Report ( at 46) sets forth the racial makeup of the University Studies courses for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 . However, neither the March 2000 Report nor the March 2001 Report contain any indication that the LRSD considered or analyzed of or analyzed vvhether the admission and tuition requirements of the University Studies Program promoted segregation. This silence occurs in the face of Section 2.1 (" .. to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools" and Section 2.6 " .. to ensure that there are no barriers to qualified African A,.mericans .. '} 45 . In the instance of the University Studies Program, there is no evidence of the Compliance Committee, or Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley "proactively monitor[ing] compliance." d. Other Barriers and Broken Promises as Shown bv the March. 2000 and A: IJOSH[h!... OPP -20- 2001 Reports 46. The 2qoo Report addressed the Talent Development Plan as a program to ensure the enrollment "high performing students in advanced classes." [Tr. at 28-30] There is no reference .made in the final rep6rt of the Talent Development Plan. The Talent Development Plan has not been demonstrated to be in existence in practice. The principal of Franklin School, Ethel Dunbar, [Tr. at 588] and Pcl-t Watson, Counselor-at Hall High School [Tr at 104-105], were unaware of this program. This is likely because the Talent Development Plan was repudiated by Dr. Lesley. It involved a commitment to a project called AVID. Project AVID which was encompassed with the Talent Development Plan but has never been implemented because of its purported high costs and because the District did not get a grant to fund it [Tr. at 7 4 7 (Lesley)] The 2001 report makes no reference to either the Talent Development Plan or Project AVID . The 2000 Interim Report, in lamenting the fact that it did not get an AVID grant said, "these programs would have assisted the . . District in its goal of increasing minority participation in higher level courses, including the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level." (p. 30) 4 7. The Interim Report also promised implementation of an Accelerated Academic Student Academic Program (AS.A.P), a prin1ary purpose of which was to radicallv narrow the achievement i;rap between Afucan American and white students. (p. 31). The 2001 Report makes no reference to the ASAP program, hov,rever, ASAP vanished. On p. 33 of the Interim Report, there is a note that "all program components are incorporated in t4is draft." Later on the page, the olan was identified as beini;r tentative and dependent uoon submittirnr a oroposal for fundini;r from the federal i;rovernment. On p. 34, it is clear that it is simply a proposal: "the District will also investigate other possible sources of funds for the other four middle schools." A:\JOSHUA.OPP -21 - 48. The 2000 Report proposed an English I/II Pre-AP Workshop on a voluntary basis for teachers. This prop~sal did not focus uoon African American students in oarticular. It allowed high schools the option, for two vears. of offering double period English program at both the regular and Pre-AP levels. The 2001 report indicates that the workshop was instituted at several schools during 2000-01' and that as ofJanuary, 2001 , the optional program would continue at one of the schools through the ne;,.1: school year. Principal Carter of McClellan indicated that his teachers chose not to participate in this program. This was not a required program and cannot be said as a district initiative designed to promote and increase partjcipation in Al' and Pre-Al' programs. The District presented no data which reflected the benefits of this workshop to African .American Students. [Tr. at 525-526 (J. Carter)] 49. The 2001 Report mal&lt;:es reference to a "International Baccalaureate Programme" at Cloverdale lvliddle and McClellan High Schools. [p. 34] The IBP was proffered as a program for increasing African .American participation in AP and Pre-Al' courses. According to Principal Carter, the program was designed to promote enrollment of African American children into a more rigorous curriculum and to attract white students to the school. It was dependent upon non district funds for its creation and operation. The District wrote that "If this grant is funded . . the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category of advanced and challenging courses available to students and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed along with the AP and Pre-.A.P and University courses. (p. 34). 50. The IBP proITTam does not overate and was not funded I 1. Principal Carter testified that Dr. Bonnie Lesley opposed the program because she thought it was not a "good mix" for the McClellan student body. [Tr. at 529, 530] Dr. Lesley did not contradict :i\1r. Carter's statement! A: ;JOSHUA.OPP -22- 51. The District's support for the University Studies Program whi~h favors white students is to be compared, the .IBP program which in design gave some favor to Black children. The administration strongly supported one with District funds and local college support but it did not support the other one, the IBM, with financial or administrative level support. 52. In the 2001 Report, the District notes that in the 2000-2001 school year it added two AP courses, Human Geography and Economics in order to promote African _American participation in AP course. (p. 33) The Human Geography program which was offered began as a majority white program, nine whites, five Blacks (se~ p. 38). The Economics program apparently did not "make" in 2000-2001 because there were no students reported as being in the class. Justin Mercer attempted during the 2000-20001 school term to take the course and was refused because there was no one to teach it. [Tr. at 352, 357] (Seep. 33) When one reviews the AP courses added, World History, Physics II, Science Pre-AP and Advanced Science/Theoretical II. Moreover, Advanced Science - Theoretical II, it is clear they were not being added so as attract and benefit more African American students. These appear college focused, i e, "Central College." [Tr. at 365-66 (J. Iviercer)] 53. The LRSD asserted that it had fulfilled its obligation of Section 2.6.2 by "imolementim2: programs to assist African American students to be successful in . and advanced placement courses. The Interim Report, (Page 39-40) does not identify any policies that it developed to assist African American students in being successful. The section speaks only to "proQ:rams." The programs which are listed are College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP); Academic Enrichment and Gified in Summer (AEGIS); South East Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME); SMART, a summer program for about 200 students; School Based Student Support Teams; and English I and II Workshop - Pre-AP, CPEP and _I\EGIS are not held out as being for the A:\JOSHUA.OPP -23- purpose of assisting _African Americans in being successful in advanced courses. SECJ:vlE was a grant program for the purpose of preparing and motivating students in technical fields It had a goal of increasing the pool of minorities who were qualified for college studies in engineering, math and science. S:tvlART does not identify the students who will be served. The English Pre-AP workshops were optional. The school based support teams had the purpose of monitoring student achievement and providing support and necessary interventions to students at-risk of failure. The District did not present any monitoring reports are results of achievement regarding the school based support teams. 54. The March 15, 2001 Report did not address any of the programs identified in the Interim Report. Instead, it talks about gifted and talented programs specialists and facilitators. These programs are for the teachers who are provided opportunities for professional growth, and receive a publication known as Sharing the Good News. Because of their outlined training those teachers are expected to become resources for other teachers. 55. Other possible programs presented in the 2001 Report are briefly discussed again under this subsection a) Two courses, Human Geography and Economics were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001. World History and Physics II were added to the curriculum for 2002. Advanced Science/Theortical Research II was added to the curriculum for 2001. There is no showing of how these courses are directed toward the success in them for iLA. students. [CX 870, p. 33] b) The proposed International Baccalaureate Programme (IBP) ,;vas contingent upon finding which did not occur between 1998-2001 [e.g. pp. 33-34] (c) Middle School research and writing Pre-AP are not held out as programs to assist A:\JOSHUA.OPP -24- (d) African A.merican students. Fiigl:). School Reading and Wri1ingWorksho-p Iis an optional program which Fair, Hall and McClellan opted to include in their schedules. There is no representation that the workshop was intended to assist A... frican American students at being successful in advanced courses. ( e) Teachers and couns~lor training has a goal to provide teachers with training to ensure that all students are successful in upper level courses. The funds for this program are provided by the State of Arkansas. This in-sen:ice training is required by the Arkansas Department of Education. (f) The 2001 Report refers to revision of Policy IKF/General Ed Graduation Requirements. This policy raised the recommended number of units for graduation to "28" including at least "8 11 Pre-.A.P or A.P courses. There is no showing of how this (g) - will benefit African American students in being successful in AP courses. [ e.g. p. 30] The policies, programs and procedures in both the 2000 and 2001 Reports represent recitation of normal school activities, "raising the bar" for graduation and creating courses that will favor students in advanced courses who are already high achievers. The courses added may substitute for college courses. (h) ,There are no programs identified in either which are specifically designed to African iunerican students in being successful in advanced placement during the regular school year. (i) The SEC:ME Program operated for one year. [Tr. at 105 (P. Watson)] G) The other programs either were not implememed or were not supported by use of any A:\JOSHUA.OPP -25- I data in either report. [e.g. ex 869, pp. 40-41 , ex 870, pp. 31-50] (k) The_ summer programs CPEP, SMART and .AEGIS have limi,ed enrolled. [Tr. at 73 8, 747 (Lesley)] (1) The District did not identify and present data which delineated participation in any "scaffolding" or "support" programs such as those described by Dr. Ross as being necessary to assist African .American students in being successful in advanced courses. [Tr. at 548,549 (Ross)] [See also Tr. at 465, 480 .. 490,492,499, 523,529 (Carter); Tr. at 88, 93, 95 (Non:nan); Tr. at 564, 566, 576 (Mosby); Tr. at 585 (Dunbar); Tr. at 747 (Lesley)] D. The Obligations to Promote Participation of Qualified African Americans in Extracurricular Activities 56. With respect to Section 2. 6, the lVIarcb 15, 2001 Report purports to show an increase in African American extracurricular participation between l. 997-98 and 1999-00, p. 2 7. The figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The general increase represents 122% for African Americans and 129% for non African American students. With respect to the District's chart on p. 28 regarding co-curricular acti,,ity participation, the aggregated data show an African American increase from 2579 to 3988. That reflects a 54.6~o increase. Non black participation, however, increased from 1222 to 1864, a percentage increase of 52.5%. The extracurricular activity and co-curricular activity general panici.pation therefore remained steady. 57. By LRSD presenting aggregated data, [Tr. at 740 (Lesley); CX. 747 [Babbs] the Court is not in a position to effectively determine whether the data reflect actual improvement in African .American participation in the respective schools. Accordingly, the anecdotal testimony of witnesses A: \JOSHUA. OPP -26- d' becomes more relevant ,vi.th respect to determining whether the policies, programs or procedures which the District ~eveloped are working. The policies which the LRSD developed purportedly to meet the requirements of the Plan represent either revision of existing purported policies or codification of practices long in force. The policies which are applicable to the instant proceeding are: a) Policy JJR - Student Co-Curricular Exnacurricular Activities [CX Ex. 719] This policy requires that "when disparities are identified in co-curricular activities, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where possible." b) Policy JJIB -R 1- High Schooi Interscholastic Athletics Cheerleading Drill TeanvPep Club [CX Ex. 719] This policy also requires that "when racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate. It is also requires (5) that transportation will be provided to all students participating in athletic and spirit group activities." [Policy JJIB -R2 applies to the middle schools and essentially repeats the provision 111 JJIB-Rl] c) Policy JBA.-R NonDicrimination in Programs and Activities [CX Ex. 719] This policy requires each school to develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation." It also requires the development and implementation of "a plan for nondiscrimination in programs and activities at each school" This policy does not include the required "improvement plan" notes in policies JJR and JJIB-Rl and R-2] d) Policy DFD-R2 Athletic Gate Rec~ipts cmd Admissions [ CX Ex 719] . A:'JOSHUA.OPP -27- This policy requires that "in cooperation with the Activities Advisory Board (AAB ), there will be a compr~hensive athletic and activities plan developed by the District to address the needs of the students .... " The steering committee will serve as staff providing technical assistance and support to the A.AB ." 58. The District staff determined that there were disparities which they identified in cocurricular and e".1:racurricular activities.1 The District staff who addressed the subject include the Associate Superintendent for Student Services, Sadie lviitchell, the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, Dr. Marian Lacey, Jodie Carter, Principal of McClellan High School, 1'1ls. Cassandra Norman, Principal ofFair High School, and Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. These staff members acknowledged an awareness of racially identifiable activities and of disparities: Ms. Mitchell [Tr. at 261 , 262, 268, 269]; Dr. Lacey [Tr. at 790, 791]; Principal Carter [Tr. at 474,492, 493 , 502, 503]; Principal Norman [Tr. at 71, 72]; Mr. Babbs [Tr. at 13 3] . Other witnesses who testified that there were racial disparities with respect to curricular and ex"1:racurricular activities were Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312, 313]; Michael Faucette, [Tr. at 199, 200, 201 , 203-206]; Crystal Mercer, a student at Central High School [Tr. at 322, 323]; Justin Mercer [Tr. at 386, 387, 388]. 59. The March 15, 2001 Report contains (at 28) under the heading Activities Advisory Board, the following content: "At the ti.me of the District 's Interim Complicmce Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advis01y Board ('A.AB ') for the pwpose of 1The activities identified included, inter alia, baseball, cheerleaders, debate, future problem solvers, odyssey of the mind, student newspaper, mock trial, orchestra, quiz bowl, soccer, swim team, tennis, volleyball and yearbook staff. [Tr. at 136, 133-35 (Babbs); Tr. at 199-200, 203 (Faucette); Tr. at 261 -262 (Mitchell); Tr. at 358-360, 362-364 (Mercer)] A:\JOSHUA.OPP -28- I} promoting, supporting and enhancing extracurricular activities cmd co-curricular activities at all schools. Th.e _A_,4B, comprised of District staff, pca-ents, student and convnzmi-ty representatives, be gem monthly meetings in April of 2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. Th.e focus of these discussion has been on a disvropordnate number of African American students who do not hm,e the financial resoUJ-ces to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and imvlementation include ... fun din'&lt;!. accessibilitv~. Each caea has been discussed in connection with incl'easing swdentpca-ti.cipation with emphasis on assuring African American participation. [underlining added for emphasis J 60. Despite the finding of ~he AAB, there was no system budget account to assist a student for whom family finances was a barrier for participation in extracurricular activities. [Tr. at 802 (Dr. Lacey).] The system addressed the. acknowledged program by a patchwork of activities, not represented to function in all schools; moreover, Dr. Lacey testified that there was no systematic effort to publicize the availability of these funds. Associate Superintendent Babbs, who coordinated the efforts of the Compliance Committee, could identify no substantial activity undertaken by that body. [Tr. at 144, 146 (Babbs) - 3 to 5] 61. The District is obliged to address barriers to participation of qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities. Despite the LRSD's consistent emphasis on the differences between family incomes in the system's white and African families [e. 2: ., Poverty Income information CX 731], the record reveals a lack of any systematic effort to address financial barriers within the meaning of Section 2.6. 62. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, never developed a plan for remedying disparities Oi imbalances in participation in exirn or co-curricular activities. [Tr. at 262] She left this to the discretion of the principals. But she excused their inaction by "blaming the victim." They have "choice" she said. [Tr. at 268]. 63. Sadie Iviitchell was responsible for "proactively monitoring compliance" and "taking A.\JOSHUA.OPP -29- - appropriate action with respect to incidents ofnon-compliance . ... " [Tr. a1 136, 138 (Babbs)] Ms. I:vlitchell testified to her shirking this responsibility [Tr. at 262-263 , emphasis added]: Q. You are awm-e. Let's just talk about the reality You were cnvare -you have , not heard the testimony. But you are cnvme, for instance, quiz bowl and debate, Odyssey of the 1vfind, vm-ious activities were all white, were you not? J A. Yes. Q. I see. Did you develop aplcmfor changing that? .. A. I did not develop a plan. The buildh1g principal did Q. Well, in the three years that the plan was in operation before the report seeking release from unitary status, did you have any occasion to prepare any writing reflecting that was shared with the Joshua lntervenors or the public reflecting what actions you would take to change those patt.ems? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I did not, because Joshua did not request a report through the formal compliance complcrint. You are suggesting that you only prepare requests or reports at Joshua's request, are you? I onlv respond to complaints from patrons, community, Joshua. ODA1s. and anvbodv else throu'?h formal complaints. So you never made an evaluation or assessment even of those things to determine the extent to which black participation was being minimized? I did not personally Staff members did. I see. Was there a plan of action developed by the Compliance Committee for dealing with the lack of black participation in acrivities like cheerleader and things like that? A. There was no plan developed by the Compliance Committee. The principals developed plans, along with the sponsors. 64. The LRSD presented as part of its case no such plai.-i by a principal or a sponsor. This included testimony that the myriad activities at Central High School had racially disparate A:iJOSHUA.OPP -30- participation, a problem not discussed at faculty meetings. [Tr. at 199-200, 207 (Faucette)] 65 . The LRSD reported that 90% of African American parents "that expressed an opinion" reported that they had activities available to their students. [Tr. at 773 (Lacey)] This answer does not address parental views regarding whether racial barriers to participation in school activities exist. African American school board member Iv.like Daugherty who has disassociated himself from the petition before the Court was unc?.mfortable with information being given strictly in percentages rather than in actual numbers regarding the survey. [Tr. at 614] 66. No District witness testifie.d that there was a specific plan, which the District through any representative, developed for addressing the disparities in e)rtracurricular and co-curricular activities. Some of the disparities were not the result of financial resources or the lack thereon by students. At McClellan and Fair many activities were not offered because of the lack of teacher sponsors and lack of staff member encouragement to students to participate. [Tr. at 477, 478, 49'.2, 533 (Carter)] [Tr. at 74, 92 (Norman)] 67. The District obviously did not follow policies JJR, JJIV and JBA-R because after disparities were identified, it did not develop an improvement plan in any area nor did it develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities to ensure that there were no barriers to participation. The school district plan commits the District to developing remedies and to promote participation. The school district delegates these responsibilities to the principals. This is contrary to the Plan in that compliance is a district administrative obligation. 68. Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director during the 1998-2001 school years addressed the problems which African _American students experienced in e""'tracurricular activities. 69. He investigated an incident where a white coach acknowledged that he choked a black A: \JOSHUA. OPP -31- Tl student at SW lYiiddle School. [Tr. at 573-576 (Mosby) (See also CX 771)]. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, - Gillespie's supervis9r, downplayed the incident saying she didn't think it was a real choking incident, but the coach admitted that he choked the child after he lost his temper. [Tr at 274-275] Mitchell's testimony reveals the attitude of the LR administration regarding compliance. She and the Compliance Committee would have profited by use of the experts, especially Dr. Terrence Roberts in addressing plan commitments. See paragraphs 126(a), (b) and (c). 70. Gillespie testified that it was a very severe offense. This occurred during football practice when other students were present. [Pp. 7-11 , Deposition ofR Gillespie] 71 . Gillespie cited similar incidents including a coach fighting an .African American student (pp. 15-17, Deposition of Gillespie) at Hall; and a white coach slapping an African American student at Mann 1v1iddle SchooL [Pp. 26-28, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 72 . The same coach involved in the choking incident at SW Middle School also called an African American female student a "bitch." [ Pp. 11-13, Deposition ofR Gillespie] 73 . Gillespie also testified that parents were upset at the middle school regarding Quiz Bowl, Band, Science Clubs and 9th grade athletics at the Middle Schools. (See CX. 770/772, p. 21 , Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 74. Several of the students explained their lack of encouragement with respect to participation in extracurricular activities. D.J Thames, a student at Fair High School, was discouraged by the repeated use of profanity by his Coach, Randy Rutherford [Tr. at 419-20] He also testified about the racially preferential treatment which Rutherford provided to white team players. [Tr. at 421-423 , 432] 75. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that he was discouraged from A:VOSHC4..0PP -32- participating in Quiz Bowl by Ms. Pickering, a white teacher, who told him that he could not be on the "A" team [Tr. -~t 403-04]. 76 . Payne stated that his white Calculus Teacher, rvir. Wilder, refused to write a recommendation for him because he didn't think Payne was "smart enough" to attend Governor's School [ Tr. at 404] 77 . Payne also explained that Ms. Klais gave him a recommendation to a college which she wrote on a piece of notebook paper for him. He was aware that she had written recommendations for white students on school letterhead. [Tr. at 407] 78. Payne also testified that he was aware that Coach Rutherford "cursed" African American players but not white players. [Tr. at 414] 79. Crystal and Justin Mercer testified that they sought to participate in mock trial. They were discouraged from participation. [Tr. at 322-23 ; 386-389] Justin was also discouraged from participating in debate [Tr. at 3 61-62] and from starting a club, the purpose ofvvhich ,vas to promote interracial diversity at Central High School by a white teacher named :t'vfr. Meadows. [Tr. at 3.96-3 97] 80. Dr. Faucette sought to receive support for his creating writing club, but did not receive it from the principal. The club had a previous history ofracial diversity. [Tr. at 192-96, 229-30] E. The Obligations to Promote Participation of "Qualified" African American Students in Extracurricular Activities and to Ensure That There are No Barriers to Such Participation 81. In Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan, the LRSD promised to "implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and . to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African Americans in e)rtracurricular activities .. . . " The LRSD adopted several regulations identifying activities to promote compliance with Section 2. 6 of the Revised Pian A. :;JOSHUA.OPP ..,.., - .).)- ff .. regarding e:;,._'iracurricular activities. 82. There were segregated activities and apparent barriers to /tlrican .Americans participation in them. Section 2.6, implememing regulations, and the compliance structure created pursuant to Sections 2.13 , 2.13 .'l, and Section 6 of the Plan called for a practical response to these problems. The system defaulted. F. The Obligation to Provide Transportation to Students for Participation in After School Activities 83 . Section 2. 6.3 provides that the LRSD shall provide transportation to students ... to allow those students to participate in after school activities . . [CX. 870, p. 29] The 2000 Report does not address this provision. 84. The 2001 Report simply recites the number of extracurricular activity runs per day for high and middle schools with a notation that no "elig:ible" student has been denied. [p. 29] The - District does not define "eligible." 85. The witnesses who addressed the transportation obligation included Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312-31 3]; Justin Mercer [Tr. at 358]; Pam Mercer [Tr.at 450]; [Tr. at 532 (l Carter)] [Tr. at 75 (C. Norman)] They testified that the District did not provide transportation for a number ofactivities. G. The Obligations to Ensure that There is No Racial Discrimination In the Provision of Guida.nee and Counseling Services and (H.) To Provide More Eguitv in Academic Honors, Awards and Scholarships 86. The 2000 Report (at pages 81-82) promises that the LRSD will implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there will be no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. The report promises at page 81 to continue monitoring of school district equity issues with respect to honors, awards and scholarships. The report states that A:VOSHUA.OPP -34- &lt;I, "continued strategies are addressed to increase the number of African Americans who pursue more rigorous academic course work and receive scholarships." 87. The report further refers to Section 2.11.1 by referring back to 2.11. 88. The 200i Report (at p. 160) simply recites the scholarships awarded at the high schools by numb.er, at p. 160 and by dollar value, at p. 161. The District does not recite any activities or programs that it engaged in to mee! the provisions of Section 2.11 at page 160, other than a survey which purported represented the opinion of94% of all parents "that help and f!uidance was available to their child." There has been no dispute that counseling services were "available" for they have always been. The District did not present any testimony regarding how it planned to modify the delivery of policies or procedures as provided by, and to meet the objectives of, Section 2.11. Nor did it delineate the work that it did in an effort to provide more equity for African American students in academic honors, awards and scholarships. Indeed, the District did not present the data which delineated scholarships awarded to African American an_d non African American students on an academic basis. 89. \Nith respect to honor graduates, .African American students constitute 66% of the high school emollment. In 1999-2000, they received 32% of the honors. The only strategy to improve the number of African American honor graduates is to have them elect to take more AP courses. 90. The Hall High School counselor, Ms. Pat Watson, agreed that counseling services were utilized in the 1999-2000 school term in an attempt by school district administrators to place two white students ahead of a Black student ,1/ith respect to the school's valedictorian position. [Tr. at 115-li9 (Watson)] Joshua .vas instrumental in preventing this intentional racial practice from occurring. A:VOSHE4..0PP -3 5- 91 . Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent responsible for counseling services, made no findings regarding student access to higher education opportunity being improved by either guidance services or by A.P courses. He did not review or monitor the annual guidance counselor's reports. [Tr. at 148-'49] 92. Ramona Horton, an involved parent in the District, testified that her children did not get help from the counselors. [Tr. at 30?] In her opinion, the delivery of counseling services was "QQQL" [Tr. at 314] She did not participate in any survey regarding the delivery of counseling services in the District. [Tr. at 314] 93 . Crystal Mercer stated that she received no assistance from her counselors nor any encouragement about enrolling or remaining, after being enrolled .. in AJ&gt; classes. [Tr. at 319-320, 324] 94. Justin Mercer stated his counselor suggested that he should not take AP Economics when he wanted to in1prove his GPA [Tr. at 3 52] His counselor told him that he could not take AP Economics because there was no teacher qualified to teach it and there was not enough student interest for it. He later learned that white students had not been similarly discouraged when he received his ne:;,,,'i: class assignment from a white friend had AP Economics on his schedule. [Tr. at 352-353] Mercer's counselor told him that he could not enroll in AP Physics because he did not meet the requirements to take it. [Tr. at 3 54] Mercer's counselor was white. [Tr. at 3 71] 95. The counselors at Central told Justin Mercer when he arrived at Central that he should not take A.P and Pre-A.P courses. The reason given was that he had been in regular courses in Junior High School and that the teachers were familiar with his transcript. [Tr. at 377] Mercer's counselor also discouraged him from taking . L&gt;J&gt; Physics II because of his background. [Tr. at 384] A: 1JOSI-TU..4.. OPP -36- 96. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor informed him that one of his teachers ;was prejudiced. [Tr. at 403] 97. D.J. Thames, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor did not assist him in getting into the College of Wooster. [Tr. at 418] Thames' counselor discouraged him from taking AP English. [Tr. at 426] His counselor also advised him to drop Ms. Pickering a.fcer having been in her class. [Tr. at 429] 98. During the 1998-99 and 99-2000 school years, McClellan had larger numbers of African American students than Central High School enrolled in AP courses. Benveen the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years, McClellan had the same number of black honors graduates as Central. The dollar value of scholarships for African American students was more than twice as much as the Central students. During the 1999-2000 school year, when the African American numbers favored Central by 2 to 1, the scholarship an1ounts favored Central students by more than 5 to 1. ThiSTeflects the second class status/perception of McClellan High School in comparison to Central. CENTR4.L HIGH SCHOOL 98a. when i\frican American parents filed the class action lawsuit seeking to desegregate the Little Rock public schools, the school district offered Central High School as the point at which to begin a plan of gradual school desegregation. Aaron v. Coover. 1-13 F. Supp. 855 (ED. Ark 1956). The plan was designed to delay the process for as long as possible pursuant to Brown v Board of Education of Toueka. Kansas 347 US. -183, (195-1), and to involve as few minority race students as possible. The Court of Appeals affirmed 243 F2d 361 (8th Cir. 1956). The District was select in choosing the first 1 7 Black students chosen by the District to attend Central, only nine (the Little Rock Nine) of whom braved the adversity of the opposition and attended Central. A: 'J0Sffi.L4..0PP -,~ -.J / - .98b. In 1972, :5fteen years after Central High School had become a symbol of public resistance to the p.rip.ciple of school desegregation, :lvlichael Faucette, an African American began his high school education at the school. He completed grades 10 through 12 at the school and graduated in 1975 . During his fenure, students were ability grouped for academic purposes into three "tracks." There were other academic groupings as well. Michael Faucette was placed in track one, the track for those students said to be the strongest academically. [Tr. at 166 (Facuette}] ,, 99. During Michael Faucette's three years in the school, he was the only African American male student in his classes. He was oft.en the only African ivnerican in his class. The total enrollment of the school at that time was approximately 65 to 70% African American. There were only eight black faculty members in Central during the period of Michael Faucette's attendance at the school; he had only one black teacher during his three years. There was only one black cheerleader during Faucette's attendance at Central. [Tr. at 166-67, 204-05 (Faucette)] 100. The school system did not recognize the academic achievements of its black high school graduates in this period. After graduating from Central High School, Mr. Faucette entered the University of California at Berkeley. After one of his classes, during his freshman year, his professor told Faucette it was an honor to have a student in his class who had earned a test score as high as 11r. Faucette had earned on one standardized test. No one from Central High School or the LRSD had complimented Faucette on this achievement prior to his leaving the District. [Tr. at 167-68 (Faucette)] 101. During the course of his post-secondary education, Michael Faucette earned two Bachelors degrees, a Masters degree, and a PhD. He taught at the college level at the University of Washington and the University of Georgia. Vlhile.at the University of Washington, he developed a A:1JOSHl.L4.0PP -38- 11 program designed to help high school students succeed at the higher education level. [ Tr. at i69 (Faucette)] 102. By 1998, the 40th anniversary of the Central High School "crisis", Dr. Faucette had determined to return to Little Rock to teach in the community in which he had secured his education. _t,,.s part of his application process in the LRSD, he visited Central High School in February, 1998. The then principal, Rudolph Howo/d, accompanied Dr. Faucette to visits to four classrooms in the school. He visited two AP classes in which the students were all white; he visited an honors class in which the students were two-thirds white; he visited a. regular English class in which there were, in contrast, only tw,o white students. The three all white or identifiably white classes had white teachers and the class with only two white students had an African .American teacher. Dr. Faucette commented to Principal Howard about the makeup of the classes. observing that the presence of two-all white classes surprised him; Mr. Howard did not reply. [Tr. 169-71 (Faucette)] 103. Dr. Faucette began teaching at Central High School at the start of the 1998-99 school year. He was assigned to teach one remedial class and regular English sections in the 12th grade. In that year, in the 12u1 grade, there were nineteen (19) English sections, some advanced placement sections, some regular English sections and two sections with a remedial designation. Dr. Faucette observed that the advanced classes - tracks - were composed almost entirely of white students and, as to location, concentrated on the third floor of the building. In contrast, the regular and remedial sections - tracks - were "primarily black" in student makeup and located on the second floor of the building. This pattern of the racial make-up of the various categories of sections and their locations continued "virtually unchanged" during the nex"t two school years (the second and third years of the Revised Plan) . [Tr. at 172-75, (Faucette)] Other evidence revealed that there were few black students A.\JOSHUA.OPP -39- 11,l in advanced placement classes during the period of the plan. [Tr. at 303 (R. Horton); at 319 (C. Mercer); at 330 CJ.Mercer)] 104. During the three years of the Plan, the makeup of the cadre of English teachers in the school was eight (8) white and eight (8) A,frican American persons, however, African American teachers taught no (98-99) or few (99-00, 00-01) advanced sections ofEnglish in the school as shown by the following chart: 98-99 99-00 2000-01 Total Eng sections 69 88 84 Total advanced secs 23 36 37 Adv sec taught by Blacks 0 2 4 English teachers 8W/8B 8'W/8B 8w/8B [Tr. 1 75-76, 178, 179-80, (Faucette)] 105. Dr. Faucette, a teacher whose excellent qualifications were obvious, did not teach even one advanced section of English during the three years of the Plan, despite the fact that these sections nu This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.</dcterms_description>

</dcterms_description>

</item>
</items>