Court of Appeals, ruling; District Court, letter-order; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-l 147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. * * * * * * * RECEIVED f.;_'.J -J 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; * On Appeal from the United Khayyam Davis; Alvin Hudson, Tatia * States District Court Hudson, Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * for the Eastern District Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua; Sarah * of Arkansas. Facen; Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce Person; * Brian Taylor; Hilton Taylor; Parsha * Taylor; Robert Willingham; and * Tonya Willingham, * * Appellants. * Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. ----- - -------- - I ' I I I ! I This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors 1 appeal from the District Court's2 denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In re Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case, and on far different issues, did not involve the same "matter in controversy" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 455(b )(2); thus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert: ( 1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM); and (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous; thus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II, we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 1This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this appeal. 2The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- - ODM. Finally, in Part III, we address whether the District Court erred in finding that LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan in most respects. I. This litigation began in 1982 and has been in and out of this Court and the District Court several times - it is complex to say the least. We briefly highlight the events relevant to the issue of the disqualification of Judge Wilson. In 1987, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors sought to disqualify Judge Henry Woods,3 who was then presiding over the case. The parties asserted as grounds for disqualification that during Judge Woods's private law practice, one of his partners had represented parties who participated as amici curiae in a related case, and that Judge Woods's impartiality was called into question by his comments at a meeting with students. Judge Wilson, then in private practice, represented Judge Woods for the limited purpose of the mandamus proceedings, defending Judge Woods's decision not to recuse himself. 4 In the current proceeding, begun by LRSD's motion that it be released from court supervision, the Joshua Intervenors sought the recusal of Judge Wilson under 28 U.S .C. 455(b)(2), which requires a judge to disqualify himself "where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy." After Judge Wilson entered an order on September 13, 2002, granting LRSD partial unitary status, the 3The Little Rock School District sought a writ of mandamus asking this Court to disqualify Judge Woods, and the Joshua Intervenors appealed a judgment entered by Judge Woods, asserting, among other things, that the judge should be disqualified. 4This Court found that Judge Woods was not disqualified. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F .2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 833 F.2d 112 (8th Cir. 1987). -3- 4t Intervenors filed a Motion for a Hearing Regarding the Relevance of28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings. Judge Wilson denied this motion on October 29, 2002. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2002 WL 31465311 (E.D. Ark. 2002). Thereafter, on November 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors moved for disqualification of Judge Wilson. Judge Wilson denied this motion because, among other reasons, he had never served, in his view, as a lawyer in the "matter in controversy." Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 4:82CV00866 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 20, 2002). The Joshua Intervenors appeal. We must determine whether Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987 involved the same "matter in controversy" as the present questions before us for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 455(b )(2). Because the mandamus proceeding did not touch upon the merits of the case, we conclude that it was not a part of the same "matter in controversy." The Joshua Intervenors contend that Judge Wilson's participation was part of the same matter in controversy because it was part of a single case. The language chosen by Congress, "matter in controversy," is not defined by the statute. However, Congress easily could have substituted the word "case" for the words "matter in controversy," but did not do so. This deliberate choice by Congress demonstrates an intent that the words "matter in controversy" mean something other than what we commonly refer to as a "case." In fact, Congress used the words "proceeding," "case in controversy," and "subject matter in controversy" in various other subsections of 455(b) to describe situations where a judge must disqualify himself. Thus, we must assume that Congress ascribed a particular meaning to the words "matter in controversy," and we must try to discern that meaning. We note that Judge Wilson represented Judge Woods at the mandamus proceedings, which were given a separate docket number from the rest of the case in this Court. This circumstance, though relevant, is not enough in itself to enable us -4- - to conclude that the disqualification proceeding was not the same "matter in controversy" as the present appeal. As we have indicated, the phrase "matter in controversy" must mean something other than the word "case," and so we do not rely on this technical distinction. Instead, we look to the substance of the issues argued and decided in the two proceedings. In Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), we discussed, but did not decide, whether a matter in controversy could extend beyond a single case. Even if a matter in controversy could be more extensive than a single case, we concluded that the facts before us did not support such a conclusion because the cases involved, "to a large extent, different issues and different remedies." Id. at 1302. We think this reasoning is useful in determining whether a matter in controversy may be less extensive than a case. Judge Wilson's representation of Judge Woods was restricted solely to the issue ofrecusal and did not go to the merits of the case. Judge Wilson was involved in the case solely for the mandamus proceedings and, in the course of his representation, never addressed the merits of the case or expressed any opinion about them. The issues before Judge Wilson in the present matter are wholly unrelated to his prior representation of Judge Woods. Although the case law is slim in this area, we find support for our position in In re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1992). In Apex Oil. Judge Loken found his recusal unnecessary where he and his former law firm were previously involved with plaintiffs' claim for damages from an oil spill and where, later, his law firm filed claims on behalf of plaintiffs in Apex Oil's bankruptcy proceedings. Id. at 304-05. The question was whether the plaintiffs' claim for damages constituted the same matter in controversy as the later claims in bankruptcy when both resulted from the same oil spill. Id. at 303. Although acknowledging that bankruptcy proceedings are atypical because they are conducted under an umbrella proceeding, Judge Loken -5- - ------ - - - --- --- ----------------- - concluded that the cases were not "sufficiently related" so as to constitute the same matter in controversy. Id. at 304. Applying this analysis to our situation, we conclude that there is not a sufficient relationship between the recusal proceedings with respect to Judge Woods and the issues now before us on the merits to make them the same "matter in controversy." Nor do we think that any impartial observer could reasonably think that Judge Wilson's impartiality should be called into question. Not only was his prior representation of Judge Woods wholly distinct; the issues before the Judge in the current proceeding involved the current version of the parties' agreement to settle the underlying case, an agreement that was never before Judge Woods, and that was not even in existence until long after he voluntarily relinquished the case. II. As we have noted, this appeal arises from an interdistrict desegregation case filed by LRSD in 1982. As part of that case, the parties agreed to a settlement plan in 1989. However, as time passed, portions of that plan proved unworkable, and the parties agreed to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. This plan was approved by the District Court and this Court. On March 15, 2001, LRSD asked the District Court to declare it unitary under 11 of the Revised Plan. On July 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed an opposition to this request. The opposition, App. of Appellants 185-86, made the following argument, among many others: The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be -6- incomplete and not keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. This opposition was filed while the case was still before Chief Judge Wright (who had taken the case after Judge Woods had removed himself from it). She then conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings, ending on November 20, 2001. On January 3, 2002, Chief Judge Wright withdrew from the case, and it was reassigned to Judge Wilson. He held three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22, 23 , and 24, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors' second major argument on appeal is that the District Court erred in making findings and entering judgment without directing ODM to prepare additional monitoring reports on LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The Joshua Intervenors point out that the ODM was created in the first place at the direction of this Court. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). The District Court had before it some relevant materials from the ODM: a report on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan, filed August 11, 1999, and a report of disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District, filed on June 14, 2000. As to the first report, the Court observed that it "indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan." Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1048 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The District Court did not view the second report as having much value. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court should have had the ODM prepare an additional report or reports before making any findings . They point out that "ODM had gained considerable expertise, preparing at least 49 reports." Brief for Appellants 39. -7- In response, LRSD argues that this point was not properly raised in the District Court. Certainly it is true that the Court never entered a written order expressly disposing of the request that additional monitoring reports be prepared. Before the case was transferred to Judge Wilson, however, Chief Judge Wright effectively denied the Intervenors' request, saying: And of course, you are free, Mr. Walker, to call the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as witnesses, as well, I mean, those people as witnesses to the extent you think they have knowledge on the matters at issue. And furthermore, and I talked information with Ms. Marshall [the head of ODM] about this, I don't mind Ms. Marshall telling you, sharing with you the information that she has, but if she does that I want her to share it with everyone else too. Tr. of June 29,2001 , 27-28. The Joshua Intervenors, in response to this invitation or otherwise, did not call anybody from the ODM as a witness. As we have noted, the request that additional monitoring reports be required was not the subject of a separate motion, but rather a matter mentioned, almost in passing, in a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors. App. of Appellants 185-86. As far as we can tell, the request was never renewed on the record, either in writing or in open Court, during the days of evidentiary hearings conducted by Judge Wilson, or in any other manner. We nevertheless assume for present purposes that the point is properly before us, and we hold that it is without merit. The ODM, as the Joshua Intervenors point out, was created at the direction of this Court, at the time of our initial approval of the settlement agreement, but the ODM was to be under the supervision of the District Court and to act as an arm of that Court in ensuring that the settlement agreement was followed. It was and remains the job of the District Court, in its discretion, to determine how the ODM should be used. A choice to rely on the existing materials prepared by the ODM, and to eschew the preparation of -8- ---- - - - - ------------~ additional reports, is certainly not an abuse of discretion. Two further points are important. First, the Joshua Intervenors could have, but did not, call someone from the ODM to testify. Second, no offer of proof was made. We do not know what OD M's position would have been if it had been asked. In this situation, it is simply impossible to say that the decision not to request the production of additional papers had any effect on the outcome of this case. III. The Revised Plan "supersede[s] and extinguish[es] all prior agreements and orders" in the case, with limited exceptions. App. of Appellants 87. Unlike the previous settlement agreement, the Revised Plan contains a specific procedure by which LRSD can attain unitary status. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding the LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. App. of Appellants 110. Although not required by 11 of the Revised Plan, one year before the final report required by 11 was due, LRSD filed an interim report to demonstrate its progress toward compliance. App. of Appellee 71. On March 15, 2001 , as required by the Revised Plan, LRSD filed its final report, which supplemented and updated the -9- information provided in the interim report. App. of Appellee 245 . The Joshua Intervenors filed objections to this report on June 25, 2001 , challenging LRSD's substantial compliance with various sections of the Revised Plan. App. of Appellants 185. After holding evidentiary hearings on the Joshua Intervenors' objections, the District Court issued an order granting LRSD partial unitary status. See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1086. The District Court denied LRSD unitary status under 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan, requiring LRSD to assess annually the academic programs promulgated under 2. 7. Id. at 1081-82. LRSD has not cross-appealed the District Court's ruling on 2. 7 .1, and it is not before us. This issue remains pending in the District Court. On appeal, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court erred in granting partial unitary status to LRSD. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors challenge the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the following sections: (1) 2.1, Good Faith; (2) 2.5-2.5.4, Student Discipline; (3) 2.6, Extracurricular Activities; and (4) 2.6-2.6.2, Advanced Placement Classes. We review the District Court's findings of fact for clear error. See Nash Finch Co. v. Rubloff Hastings, L.L.C., 341 F.3d 846, 850 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, we must affirm unless the findings are, in our opinion, clearly erroneous, which means that we must have a "definite and firm conviction" that the District Court was mistaken. Ibid. If "there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous." Id. at 851 ( quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 US. 564, 574 (1985)). We also note that the Joshua Intervenors bear the burden of proof. Under 11 of the Revised Plan, "[a]ny party who challenges the Little Rock School District's compliance bears the burden of proof." App. of Appellants 110. Section 11 of the -10- - Revised Plan also compelled the District Court to enter an order granting unitary status to LRSD unless the Joshua Intervenors met this burden. Ibid. We hold that the District Court did not clearly err in finding that the Joshua Intervenors had not met their burden with respect to the four subject-matter areas on appeal. Thus, we affirm. A. The Joshua Intervenors appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.1 of the Revised Plan, which provides: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. App. of Appellants 88. This section places an independent duty on LRSD to exercise its "best efforts" and to act in "good faith" in attempting to remedy the effects of discrimination. The Joshua Intervenors argue that LRSD did not act in good faith. As evidence, they allege that Central High School is still functionally segregated, although the building itself has been integrated. See Brief for Appellants 44-46. Specifically, the Joshua Intervenors argue that the advanced-placement program segregates students into different classrooms, which are the functional equivalent of different schools. Ibid. Moreover, they assert that the teachers are assigned to advanced-placement courses in a racially segregated manner-white teachers teaching advanced-placement classes and African-American teachers teaching regular -11- -------- - classes. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also suggest that segregation seeps outside of the classroom and into extracurricular activities. Ibid. The obligation of good faith under 2.1 of the Revised Plan is separate from, and independent of, other affirmative obligations undertaken by LRSD pursuant to 2 of the Revised Plan. Thus, it is possible for LRSD to have acted in good faith, meeting its obligation under 2.1 , even though it did not meet other affirmative obligations imposed by the Revised Plan. After the Revised Plan was adopted, the Little Rock School Board enacted fifteen different policies related to its obligation of good faith and took steps to ensure that all administrators and teachers were aware of these new policies. LRSD also hired Dr. Terrence Roberts, Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 615-16, and Dr. Steven Ross, Tr. of July 23, 2002, at 539, as desegregation experts. Dr. Roberts testified that he had been actively involved in reviewing policies and procedures. Tr. of July 24, 2002, at 619-20. He also testified that he had developed training programs for teachers and other staff members. Ibid. Dr. Roberts testified that he told the Board that LRSD had directed much energy and effort toward meeting all the criteria in the Revised Plan and that LRSD had the potential for being a model school district for the nation. Id. at 647. Dr. Roberts criticized LRSD for having a "compliance mentality" because some individuals were interested only in meeting the requirements of the Revised Plan. Id. at 630-31. However, as explained by the District Court, compliance was exactly the issue at hand. LRSD was under constant scrutiny and had to be very careful that it met its obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1045. Under 8.2 of the Revised Plan, a detailed procedure for addressing compliance issues was established whereby the parties would attempt to solve compliance issues before submitting them to the District Court for resolution. The Board paid the Joshua Intervenors to monitor LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Joshua Intervenors raised only five compliance issues, which -12- ---------- - ----------- ~ - were all resolved without resorting to the District Court. App. of Appellee 415. None of the issues raised in opposition to the final report was previously raised by the Joshua Intervenors. The District Court found that the purpose of the dispute mechanism under 8.2 was to avoid any surprises when LRSD filed the final report, and that LRSD reasonably relied on the Joshua Intervenors to raise any problems in a timely fashion. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. The District Court also found that the interim report placed the Joshua Intervenors on notice of all the problems, but they did not respond. Ibid. Although 11 does not require that any objections be previously raised under 8.2, the District Court found that Intervenors' failure to raise these issues was a factor to consider in deciding whether LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan. Id. at 1043-44. For the reasons stated above, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.1 of the Revised Plan. B. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.5-2.5.4, relating to student discipline. Although 2.5.1-2.5.4 impose specific obligations with regard to discipline, the Joshua Intervenors assert in particular that LRSD did not meet its obligation under 2.5, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. App. of Appellants 90. This section requires LRSD to create and implement programs and policies designed to eliminate discriminatory practices from student -13- ___________ _ ___ __________ _. discipline. It does not require, however, that LRSD in fact absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The Joshua Intervenors argue that the District Court improperly found that LRSD had substantially complied with 2.5 because the Court misconstrued the meaning of the words "to ensure." Brief for Appellants 40. Interpretation of the Revised Plan is a question of law, which we review de novo, and we hold that the District Court did not err in construing the obligation imposed by 2.5. The Joshua Intervenors argue that "to ensure" means to make sure that racial discrimination does not occur. Ibid. If "to ensure" were the only operative phrase in the provision, the argument might be well taken. But 2.5 does not require LRSD to ensure anything. It merely requires that LRSD "implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure .. .. " (Emphasis ours.) The thrust of the provision is that certain programs with the purpose of ensuring that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline be instituted. This does not mean that the programs must be perfectly efficacious. In addition, the object is to eradicate discrimination, which is not necessarily the same thing as disparity. Racial disparity may exist without discrimination. Discrimination, of course, can cause disparity, but it is not the only possible cause. Disparity in discipline is a nation-wide problem. The District Court cited something called "total suspension index." The total suspension index demonstrates disparity in discipline and is calculated by dividing the percentage of AfricanAmerican students expelled or suspended by the percentage of African-American students in the population, and comparing this number with that for white students. The District Court found that LRSD's suspension index was between 1.25 - 1.31 for the years 1997-2001. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1054. In other words, to take 1997 as an example, African-American students were 1.25 times as likely, so to speak, to be disciplined or suspended than white students. The national -14- -------- - ---- --- ----------~ index for 1998 was 2.24, and the Arkansas index was 2.16. The District Court specifically found that the Joshua Intervenors did not meet their burden of proving that disproportionate discipline imposed on African-American students was the result of discrimination. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1057. This finding is not clearly erroneous. LRSD enacted several policies to implement its obligations regarding student discipline and created a Compliance Plan, which outlined how LRSD planned to implement the Revised Plan and who bore responsibility for such implementation. Under the Compliance Plan, Junious Babbs was responsible for monitoring student discipline. An ombudsman, James Washington, was appointed pursuant to 2.5.3 to ensure that students were treated fairly throughout the discipline process. The ombudsman was charged with shepherding students through the discipline process, including making students aware of the rules, acting as an advocate for students involved in the disciplinary process, and investigating parental and student complaints of discrimination. The interim and final reports issued by LRSD focused on the decrease in overall suspensions and expulsions, due in part to programs developed by LRSD, such as behavior modification programs and alternative learning centers. App. of Appellee 85-87, 273-74. Although the reduction in suspensions for African-American students was not so large as that of white students, the District Court found that the proportion of suspensions received by African-American students remained the same. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1051. Neither the interim report nor the final report focused on the fact that racial disparity existed among the students who received suspensions or expulsions, and the District Court found that LR.SD could have sorted the data in such a way as to give a more meaningful analysis. Id. at 1051-52. However, the District Court found that the Joshua Intervenors had access to the raw data and never raised the issue. Id. at 1052. -15- ------ - - - More specifically, the District Court found that the reports did not mislead the Joshua Intervenors. Ibid. The ODM produced a Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, which showed that African-American students received a disproportionate number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the District Court specificaHy found that this report was not intended to address the effectiveness of any programs that were instituted to address fairness in discipline. Id. at 1052-53. The District Court also noted that the report suggested that factors outside of the schools might affect which students receive discipline, such as home environment, family values, and whether the home is a single-parent home. Id. at 1052. The report did not contain a specific analysis of the facts of each suspension or expulsion to help determine whether discrimination occurred. Id. at 1052-53. However, the report did conclude that the racial disparity meant that LRSD "has certainly not eliminated nor even abated racial discrimination in suspensions . . .. " Id. at 1053 ( quoting Report on Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD, June 14, 2000). The District Court rejected this conclusion as speculative because it was based on raw statistics. Ibid. Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, was responsible for monitoring compliance with the Student Handbook. She reviewed every long-term suspension or expulsion and all appeals from short-term suspensions. Tr. of Nov. 19, 2001, 36-37. If the procedures of the Student Handbook were not followed, Dr. Watson overturned the punishment and removed it from the records. Ibid. Although Dr. Watson acknowledged that African-American students were more frequently suspended than white students, she believed this was due to the fact that they more frequently engaged in conduct prohibited by the Student Handbook. Id. at 83-84. She also testified that she believed this was due primarily to socioeconomic factors. (Some of these factors may be caused by or related to racial discrimination, but they are not the fault of the present administration of LRSD.) The District Court -16- - specifically found that the testimony of all the administrators involved in the disciplinary process was credible. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1050. For these reasons, we find no clear error in the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with 2.5 of the Revised Plan. C. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting LRSD unitary status under 2.6 and 2.6.3, relating to extracurricular activities. Although 2.6.3 imposes a specific obligation with regard to transportation for extracurricular activities, the Joshua Intervenors assert that LRSD did not meet its obligation under 2.6, which provides: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities . . .. App. of Appellants 90-91. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial discrimination occurred in extracurricular activities, evidenced by the fact that many extracurricular activities did not have a proportionate share of African-American participants. Brief for Appellants 46. Certain activities' participants, such as tennis, swimming, quiz bowl, mock trial, and cheer leading, were predominantly white. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that there were barriers to participation, including costs of participation and lack of transportation. The Joshua Intervenors argue that racial disparities in extracurricular activities are the result of discrimination. However, as noted by the District Court, nothing in -17- - ------- - - - ------ ------~ - 2.6 of the Revised Plan required LRSD to impose quotas on extracurricular activities. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1058. LRSD undertook to promote the participation of African-American students and to eliminate barriers to participation. As we noted above with respect to 2.5, this provision does not make LRSD an insurer. It requires only that the District "implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure," et cetera. (Emphasis ours.) The final report noted a marked increase m African-American students' participation in extracurricular activities following the enactment of the new policies. App. of Appellee 276-77. The final report also demonstrated that LRSD attempted to eliminate barriers to participation by having buses transport students to and from extracurricular activities. Id. at 278. Although the record does not establish which students took advantage of the extra buses, the final report stated that "no extracurricular activity transportation request made by an eligible student has been denied." Ibid. As noted by the District Court, the Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proof on this issue, and they did not provide a single witness to testify that African-American students were unable to participate because of a lack of transportation. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. The Joshua Intervenors also assert that the costs of certain activities create a barrier to participation. Although there are costs associated with certain activities, Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools, testified that each school had a discretionary fund which could be used to help students pay the costs of extracurricular activities. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 775-76. The District Court also found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no testimony that any student was denied an opportunity to participate because of costs. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 23 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1059-60. -18- The Joshua Intervenors asserted that certain schools, which were primarily African-American, did not have the same extracurricular activities as other schools, and that this violated LRSD's duty to promote participation. However, the District Court found that each school determined which extracurricular activities to offer on the basis of student interest, and if enough interest existed, each school offered a stipend to sponsors of those activ'ities. Id. at 1060. The District Court concluded that certain activities were missing at certain schools not because of discrimination but instead because of lack of student interest. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors presented several students' testimony to support their assertion that African-American students were not encouraged to participate or were prevented from participating in extracurricular activities. The District Court did not find this testimony impressive. Id. at 1061. Questions of credibility and inferences to be drawn from facts must generally be left to the trial court. The Joshua Intervenors bore the burden of proving that LRSD was not implementing programs, policies, or procedures designed to promote participation and ensure there were no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities. We hold that the District Court did not err in determining that the Joshua Intervenors failed to meet this burden. D. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's order granting LRSD unitary status under 2.6-2.6.2, relating to advanced-placement classes and honors programs. While 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 impose specific duties on LRSD to provide training programs for teachers to identify and encourage qualified African-American students to participate in advanced-placement programs and to assist African-American students in being successful in advanced-placement -19- - programs, the Intervenors do not complain that these specific provisions were violated. Instead, they focus on 2.6, which imposes a more general duty: LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in . . . advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. App. of Appellants 90-91. The phraseology of this provision is similar to others discussed above. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the District Court erred in finding no barriers to participation in advanced-placement courses. The low number of AfricanAmerican teachers assigned to advanced-placement courses, they say, is a barrier to participation. Brief for Appellants 43-44. The Joshua Intervenors rely primarily on the testimony of Dr. Michael Faucette, an English teacher at Central High School. Dr. Faucette testified that although there were eight African-American teachers and eight white teachers in Central High's English Department, African-American teachers taught only a few of the advanced-placement sections. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 176-80. Dr. Faucette, an African-American teacher, did not teach any of the advanced-placement sections. Id. at 177. The Little Rock School District Board created a regulation setting forth criteria to help teachers identify African-American students for participation in advanced-placement courses. Although this was one factor used in identifying students for participation in advanced-placement courses, enrollment was still open to any student who showed the proper level of motivation and commitment. App. of Appellee 279. Teachers were then required to monitor performance and behavior to ensure that students placed in those courses would remain there. -20- LRSD studied methods to increase enrollment in advanced-placement courses and determined that pre-advanced-placement courses were necessary to prepare students better and earlier. LRSD implemented pre-advanced-placement courses for sixth and seventh-grade students. These programs have been highly successful, and the District Court found that as a result of these programs, LRSD has added over 600 African-American students to its advanced-placement courses for juniors and seniors. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. LRSD has also implemented the SMART Program, a summer program designed to teach algebra to students to prepare them for algebra in the eighth grade. App. of Appellee 112. The District Court found that during the term of the Revised Plan, at least 95% of the students attending the SMART Program were African-American. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1063. Evaluations of the SMART Program determined that it was a success. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 678. LRSD also instituted a "Teachers of Color" program to increase the number of African-American advanced-placement teachers. Id. at 671 . The principal at each middle school and high school determined who would be assigned to teach each class. However, the principals were constrained by the collective- bargaining agreement, which required consideration of a teacher's experience and seniority. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 90. An advanced-placement teacher also needed to be qualified through the state. Although Dr. Faucette testified about the racial composition of advanced-placement teachers in Central High School's English Department, he did now know about other advanced-placement sections at Central High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1065. The District Court found Dr. Faucette's testimony unreliable. Ibid. The Joshua Intervenors also point to racial disparity in the Hall High School University Studies program, a program developed in conjunction with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock that provided an opportunity for students to earn college -21- credit for classes taken at Hall High School. Admission requirements were developed by the University of Arkansas. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 727-28. In order to receive college credit for the courses, students were required to pay tuition of approximately $150 per course. Tr. of July 22, 2002, 114. The Joshua Intervenors assert that the tuition payments created a barrier to participation for African-American students. Brief for Appellants 42-43. The District Court found that during the 1999-2000 school year, 58% of the students participating in Hall High School's University Studies Program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 71 % of all students at Hall High School. Little Rock Sch. Dist. , 237 F. Supp. 2d at 1066. During 2000-2001, only 35% of the students in the University Studies program were African-American, while African-American students comprised 72% of all students at Hall High School. Ibid. However, the Court found that the Joshua Intervenors presented no evidence that any student was denied admission to the University Studies Program because of inability to pay. Ibid. Testimony also indicates that the school solicited a donation to cover the cost for at least one African-American student who wished to participate but was unable to pay. Tr. of July 24, 2002, 802. For these reasons, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under 2.6 of the Revised Plan. * * * * * * The judgment is affirmed. It goes without saying, but we say it anyway, that LRSD remains fully subject to the Constitution and all other applicable laws, and that these obligations are enforceable by appropriate legal action. -22- I I I I I I I I I I I - HEANEY, Circuit Judge, concurring. I concur in every aspect of the majority's opinion except insofar as it holds that the LRSD has implemented "programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline," as required by section 2.5 of the Revised Plan. In my view, the LRSD has failed to meet this obligation. It is true that the LRSD has implemented several programs with regard to student discipline: the LRSD provided every student, parent, teacher, and administrator with a copy of the Student Handbook; the LRSD trained students, teachers, and administrators on provisions in the Handbook; the LRSD created the position of Ombudsman to investigate student complaints of race-based mistreatment in student discipline; Dr. Linda Watson, the Assistant Superintendent who was responsible for implementing section 2.5 of the Revised Plan, reviewed every longterm suspension and expulsion, and any short-term suspensions that were appealed; Dr. Watson prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports from each school, used these reports to identify problems, and met with the schools' administrators to discuss solutions; the LRSD established alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in school; the LRSD offered training in classroom management and effective discipline; and the LRSD followed a progressive discipline approach by imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. It is also true that the LRSD has reduced the total number of disciplinary sanctions of students during the time of the Revised Plan from 5 ,3 12 total sanctions in 1998, to 5,080 total sanctions in 2001.5 During that same period, however, the 5 All 1998 statistics are from the LRSD' s 1998-1999 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX679) and the 2001 statistics are from the LRSD's -23- ----- - - - -------------- - number ofblack students receiving disciplinary sanctions actually increased. During the 1998-99 school year, there were 4,470 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 842 disciplinary sanctions of white students. Put another way, in the first year of the Revised Plan, 65% of the student population in the LRSD was black, while 84% of the disciplinary sanctions were ofblack students. By 2001, the year the LRSD sought unitary status, the disparity was even greater. In the 2000-01 school year, there were 4,534 disciplinary sanctions of black students compared to 546 disciplinary sanctions of white students. In other words, black students consisted of 68% of the student population, but accounted for 89% of the disciplinary sanctions. Therefore, from 1998 to 2001, disciplinary sanctions ofblack students increased from 84% to 89%. It is undisputed that the programs instituted by the LRSD to address disciplinary issues have had no positive impact on the racial disparity of student discipline in the district. If you compare the discipline statistics in the individual high schools for the same period they track in very similar ways with almost all of the schools experiencing an increase in disparity. It is worth noting, however, that Parkview High School, the most integrated high school in the district, has the lowest racial disparity in student discipline in the district. In 1998-99, Parkview's student population was 51 % black and the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students was 49%. In 2000-01, Parkview' s black student population was still 51 %, but the percentage of disciplinary sanctions of black students rose to 66%. Even at 66%, however, Parkview still had the lowest disparity in student discipline in the district that year. I agree that the Revised Plan does not require the LRSD to absolutely eliminate racial disparity from student discipline. The majority and the district court, however, rely heavily on the fact that section 2.5 requires the LRSD to implement programs 2000-2001 Annual Disciplinary Management Report (Ct. Ex. CX681). -24- - ------ --- - - ----- - ------ "designed to ensure" that there is no racial discrimination in student discipline. The implication is that because the LRSD implemented programs which would effect student discipline, the actual impact of those programs does not matter. I disagree. It is not enough for the LRSD to list the programs it implemented to address the disparity in student discipline, when the result of those programs was an increase in the racial disparity in student discipline. The mere implementation of programs, no matter how many or how impressive sounding, that have virtually no impact on the racial disparity in student discipline is not enough to meet the district's obligations under the Revised Plan. This lack of impact on the disparity in discipline is really no surprise when you review the testimony of Dr. Watson. Dr. Watson testified that: she was never instructed that there needed to be a reduction in the racial impact of suspensions in the district; she never prepared a monitoring report with regard to disparities in discipline; she did not prepare any reports which track whether certain teachers or administrators have a pattern of disciplinary actions based on race; nor did she recommend any programs to address the continued disparate impact of discipline. (Nov. 19, 2001, Unitary Status Hr' g Tr. at 25-163 .) Dr. Watson also testified that the percentage of black students being suspended did not decrease, that disparate patterns of discipline still exist based on race, that there are no plans to reduce the disparate impact of student discipline in the district, and that the LRSD is not even looking at student discipline based on race. (Id.) The majority, and the district court, seem to take solace in the fact that racial disparity in student discipline is a national problem. According to the district court, in 1998, the national "total suspension index" was 2.24 and the Arkansas "total suspension index" was 2.16, whereas the LRSD's "total suspension index" remained constant at 1.26 from 1997-2000. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 237 F.Supp. 2d 988, 1054 (E.D. Ark. 2002). The majority and the district court consider the fact that the LRSD' s index is lower than that of the nation -25- ------- - - - - -- ~ - and the state significant, and the fact that the LRSD' s index did not change over the period of the Revised Plan insignificant. I disagree. The Revised Plan said nothing about the LRSD's racial disparity in student discipline in comparison to the state or the nation. The Revised Plan did, however, require the LRSD to implement programs designed to ensure that the racial disparity in student discipline in the district would decrease. This, they failed to do. The majority and the district court also assert that Joshua did not meet its burden in proving that the racial disparity in student discipline was the result of discrimination. This was not Joshua's burden. According to section 11 of the Revised Plan, Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to comply with its obligations as set forth in the plan. Joshua met this burden by showing that the programs the LRSD implemented to address the racial disparity in discipline were ineffective. As I read the Revised Plan, it was the LRSD's obligation to determine whether the continued disparity in discipline was the result of racial discrimination or merely socioeconomic factors as suggested by Dr. Watson. Here again, the LRSD failed to meet its obligation and rested merely on the fact that it implemented programs. Programs that, in the end, had no effect on the racial disparity in student discipline. It is true that Joshua could have done more to raise concerns about the failure of the LRSD's programs earlier, but this does not remove all responsibility from the LRSD. The statistics compiled and reports filed by the LRSD lack valuable data. I have found no useful statistics on recidivism among students to determine how many students, and of what race, are receiving multiple disciplinary sanctions. The record does not contain statistics that separate offenses involving the discretionary judgment of staff from objective offenses. The record lacks any reports which show whether there is a correlation between the race of the teacher administering the discipline and the race of the student receiving it, or whether certain teachers have a higher rate of discipline than others. Dr. Watson testified that she was able to access some of this -26- --------- --- - - ----------~ information and that she knew which schools had high rates of disciplinary sanctions and which teachers issued more suspensions than others, but I cannot agree that her personal, undocumented knowledge was sufficient to meet the court's mandate that the district implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with respect to student discipline. Absent the necessary records, there is no way the district court, or this court, can reach an informed conclusion as to whether blacks are disciplined more frequently for legitimate reasons or because they are judged by different standards than white students, at least by some teachers. I would remand this case to the district court on the disciplinary issue, along with the issue of student achievement retained by the district court, to require the district to comply with our original mandate. -27- March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Froachell 11800 Pleasant !Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. John Walker Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 172 . is Hansen Mr. Stephen W. Jones 1 Ce r Street, Suite 1200 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 L le Rock, AR 72201 little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Counsel: 4:82CV00866 Q As you know the September 11 , 20 emorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligc1tions under 2. 7. 1 on or before the 15th of this month. Then, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days {until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This mis:;ive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Cordially, Wm. A. Wilson, Jr. Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004 ------ - - --- --------- --- RECEIVED 4t MAR 11 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAlVSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 DATE: J .. I ) .. otj FAX NO.: There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, bein1~ sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: A;~~~ Office of Judge Wm. ll W~Jr. U. S. District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Direct Phone Numbers: Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk Janet Pulliarn, Law Clerk (odd case numbers) Caf'oline Curry, (even case numbers) Macy Johnson, Courtroom Deputy Ch.-ista Newburg, Court Reporter 604-5141 604-5142 604-5148 604-5144 604-5145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.1,ETAL. RECEIVED {i,,, h'trWJt-lf/t1 {/) h /J.o/ MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAR 1 ' 2004 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER u.fo1\kif J?uRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 12004 JAM5S W McCORMACK, CLERK ~y: -----D=-=E=p....,_C ~LE_ A _K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have received a copy of Mr. Walker's March 10, 2004 letter to Ms. Ann S. Marshall. A copy of the letter is attached to this Order. The letter appears to be an anticipatory objection to a report that has not been filed; and a request for "facilitation" by Ms. Marshall as the Director of the ODM. ,, .. . 2. When the LRSD report is filed, in the next few days, if Joshua perceives deficiencies in it, I would anticipate that, at that time, appropriate objections would be made, which might or might not include the points mentioned in the March 10 letter. 3. I note parenthetically that the meeting in Ms. Marshall's office, referenced in the first paragraph of the March 10 letter, does not give a date of the meeting, and does not mention what compliance issues were discussed, nor does it identify the "numerous areas of disagreement." Any objections filed after the LRSD report is in existence should be shot through with specificity and precision. "'.;.,?.' 6 '\~'<{).1-t < -~j 1 .. 4. Any suggestion of "facilitating" at this point, if there is such a suggestion to be read into the letter, is late -- far too late. I am going to take the LRSD report, the objections, if any, by Joshua, and decide the issues presented on April 27, or soon thereafter. 5. Consistent with the specific directions given to the ODM, I would expect that office to file a report on the progress under 2.7.1. soon, so that the parties will have ample time to study it, and determine whether they want to rely on it at the April 26 - 27 hearing, or want to object to it or parts of it. 6. As I think can be discerned from the above, I expect reports and objections from the parties and the ODM to be timely filed , so that we can wrap the matter up during the April hearing. To this end, I invite your keen attention to my letter dated March 9, 2004. I point out that this letter contains directives, not goals or suggestions. IT IS SO ORDERED this / [71f day of March, 2004. WM. R. WILSON, JR. / i / I . I ,I.e JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATI'ORNEY kr LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 _FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. Ms. Ann S. Marshall, Monitor Office of Desegregation monitoring 124 West Capital, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 March 10, 2004 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Ms. Marshall: DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, AllKANsAS 72210 PHONE: {501) 372-3425 FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Now that we have the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, it is very clear that the court is concerned, as we are, about improving the academic achievement of African American students. Our beliefis that all of the components of the Plan were intended to work 'hand in glove' to that end. When we last met with your office after having invoked the process set forth in the Plan regarding compliance issues, there were numerous areas of disagreement with respect to the District's obligations. Those areas have not been resolved. Moreover, we did not reach agreements on whether all programs as set forth in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report were to be evaluated or which ones indeed were to be evaluated. Little Rock took the position that it would only evaluate literacy and math. We resisted that position then and we do so now because such limitation does not address the very purposes of the evaluations in the first place. Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Chris Heller were the District's representatives at the conference with you. Joy Springer, Bob Pressman and I (for a short while) represented Joshua. Since Dr. Lesley has left the District we have had no further contact with anyone from the District for the purpose offollowup discussions regarding the subject. On or about January 15, 2004, I received two lengthy reports from the District entitled: 1) Little Rock Literacy Program Evaluation; and 2) An Evaluation of Mathematics & Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. They were sent without explanation or an invitation for discussion. Mr. Heller was aware that we had invoked the process outlined in the Plan and that apparently your office was awaiting more responses from LRSD before having more followup meeting between Joshua and Little Rock. We have received the updates you have sent the parties as you have monitored LRSD's program evaluation. 1 We have now completed our initial review and discussion regarding those evaluations and find not only do they fail to address all of the programs that we negotiated to be evaluated but, that inter alia, the evaluations are keyed to ''No Child Left Behind" mandates or State accountability mandates. They appear to be less keyed to the explicit outcome objectives of the plan or to the evaluation processes the district adopted in its compliance plan and regulations. While Mr. Heller has contended that there are no outcome requirements of the plan, it was certainly a promised expectation that programs would be altered, modified, and improved upon their inadequacies and then nonworking programs which failed to remediate achievement disparity would be eliminated and replaced. The objective we expect is t hat achievement of black school children will be not less than 90% of the achievement of white school children. I believe that the program evaluations that have been presented miss their mark on many counts, some of which I now bring to your attention as the process facilitator with a notation that these comments are also being delivered to Mr. Heller for the District's use. These evaluations address only literacy, math and science which certainly are not all the programs that are related to improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students. I call your attention to the Court's Order of September 13, 2002, page 168. I am also informing Judge Wilson of our serious concerns regarding the deficiencies of the program evaluations. Our list is not comprehensive because we need to 1) thoroughly review the evaluations, 2) have discussions via the process and the study itself and 3) have more information regarding the District's intentions. 1) Joshua remains concerned about the lack of achievement for African American students at virtually all grade levels. 2) The literacy report does not identify any significant relationship or correlation between the literacy programs implemented by LRSD and the achievement of African American students. 3) Neither the literacy report nor the math/science report addressed African American student achievement by grade level, achievement by school or specific remediation mastery by student, grade level or school. None of the curricular programs in the study had a significant impact on student achievement in 5th grade, for example. 4) The literacy report (page 45) makes the 'surprising' notation that substantial differences exist in the overall achievement of African American students and other students in the Little Rock School District. This conclusion is, in large part, what this action is intended to correct. Joshua interprets that notation to mean that the programs that have been utilized have not successfully addressed African American student achievement nor have they been modified or replaced by others which promise greater success. It surely cannot mean that the objective is impossible to attain. 2 5) The control groups utilized for the literacy report raise another concern. In this report, a significant number of the students, almost half of them, in the District appear to be eliminated from the study. 6) The literacy report contains formative information through a few teacher focus groups, however, this data is not inclusive of the total teacher population responsible for remediation of African American student achievement. Therefore, Joshua must conclude that such information is skewed at best. 7) Joshua recalls the representations of Dr. Bonnie Lesley during her court testimony that the achievement gap in grades K-2 had been eliminated according to her DRA assessments during the 2001-2002 school year. The 2003 literacy evaluation submitted by the District now contradicts her findings in that approximately half of the African American students during 2002-2003 in 4th grade were performing Below Basic. Those second grade students would appear to be the 4th graders now performing below basic. Surely there are sufficient data to prepare an evaluation of literacy in these grades (K-2) and for the District to be able to track their individual performances through Dr. Lesley's data. I read that the Court's Order, Page 170, paragraph A, contemplates the use ofthis data, i.e., "LRSD now has over three years of testing data ..... " 8) Joshua remains concerned regarding the District's ability to accurately record, collect, retain and retrieve student achievement data. 9) There is no discussion regarding the. participation of African American students in Pre-AP and AP courses which were allegedly instituted to address African American achievement. Nor is there any evaluation of the District's tutoring programs or other programs aimed at improving African American performance. I 0) The report indicates that African American students had substantially lower absolute performance than did other students. The academic gains on literary tests were lower for African American students than for other students. The evaluations do not compare the achievement of Benchmark exams of 4th or 8th grade students for 2001 or 2002 scoring Below Basic in successive years. Moreover, the SAT 9 test results for higher grade students reflect a need for more information. 11) The District was inconsistent in providing the necessary support for teachers to attend necessary literacy training (Reading Recovery, Effective Literary and ELLA). 12) The evaluation reports discussed professional development in literacy and mathematics while ignoring the three major professional development commitments in the March 15, 2001 compliance report. 3 The foregoing list is merely suggestive; it is not exhaustive. Because of your designated role, I am requesting that Judge Wtlson involve your office in preparing a comprehensive monitoring report of the District's compliance with its student achievement commitments by use of the evaluation process. That I believe was a role envisioned for ODM by both the Court Of Appeals and by the District Court as well. I will be filing the necessary papers to that end, but in the meantime would you ldndly advise me as to the status of our having already invoked the process set forth by the plan. JWW:js cc: Honorable Judge William R. Wilson Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Robert Pressman All Other Counsel Sincerely, ,.. / ,,. -- / _ -, I , --": /_.,, ,:1,: - . i ? / // c . ~ V"'--'"'--c/r .. >-i,-v L-\... ((__, \ ,, . ~f- I \ ,__.,, fohn W. Walker 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 :; 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan"), with the exception of Revised Plan 2. 7. 1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2. 7 .1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD' s Board of Directors ("Board") adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25, 2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6 as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the "Process for Raising Compliance Issues" set for in Revised Plan 8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003 . At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshua's concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph "D" of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs "A" and "B" of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; (2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; (3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; and ( 4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6 plan. To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-RI when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation ILRl set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results - of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the District 's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through Page 3 of 6 a National Science Foundation ("NSF") grant; Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction; and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Court's Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any "questions or concerns" about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Boardapproved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs "A" and "B" of the Court's Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy; that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations; and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Nations Banlc Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 HERSCHEL H. Fa.lDAY (lf7219'4) WIWAM K. Stn"TON, P.A. BYJ.ON M. EISEMA)(, JL. P.A. ,o~ D. BELL r .A. J~ UTTI.Y, P.A. PU S. UI.SER.Y, P.A. O AVIS. JL. P.A. JAM . LARX.. JL, P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P.A. LA,IJ.Y W. BUIX.S, P.A. A. WYCKl.lPP NISBET, JR.., P.A. JA.Mf.S EDWAJtD HAJt.11S, P.A. J. PKIWP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SKEPHEltD 1.USSEU 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WIWAM THOMAS BAXTER. f".A. IJCHAJlD D. TA YLOll. P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HUUT, JL, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUUAY, P.A. CHRJSTOPHER KELLER.. P.A. LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER.. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MAO.EV, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. UVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WtU.IAM A. WADDELL JJL, P.A. SCOTT J. LA}ICA.STER.. P.A. I.OBERT B. BEACH. JR.., P.A. J. LEE Bl.OWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAUR.. Ul.. P.A. HAJUt.Y A. LIOKT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PR.ICE C. GARDNER.. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WIUON. P.A. JEFPR.EY H. MOOR.E, P.A. DAVID M. GR.AF, P.A. ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRIDAY ELDREDGE & CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WNW.frldayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703,.C811 TELEPHONE 47$-.895-2011 FAX .C7$-.H521'7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 170.7822198 FAX 170.782, 2911 October 25, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: CAJlLA Gl.JN'NELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOKN C. FDIDLEY. Jk., P.A. JOHANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHIUSTOPKER LAWSON, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAH. P.A. BETTY J. DEMOkY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMJTtl P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DA.NIEL L. HEJUUNGTOH, P.A. MAI.VIN L CHILDEJt.S K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. COI.HWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8 . HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. K.A.JtN'EY KELLY MUI.PHY MCQUEDI JOSEPH P. MCUY ALEXANDR.A A. IPR.AH JAY T. TAYLOR MA.Jl TIN A. KASTEN Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W. OUX.E JOSEPH G. HlCHOU ROBEJ.T T. SMITH I.YAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTifY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR LU.ENS. HALBERT SAi.AH M. COTTON PHILIP 8 . MONTGOMERY C.IJSTEH S. RJGGIHS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY WITCH.AM SLOAN lKAYYAM M. EDDJ'NGS JOKN F. PEISUJCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BR.ANDON J. ttA.R.RJSON orCOUNsu D.S. a..u..r. WIWAMLTEUY WlWAM L PATTON. JR.. tl T. LARZELU.E. P.A. JOHN C. EOfOLS. P.A. A.D. MCAUJSTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501J70.JS2l FAX 50124'5$41 f ndleyOf c . net Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 In our letter dated October 11, 2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21, 2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walker's comments will be addressed in turn. EXHIBIT A I All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as "implementat[ ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ... ", which are to be subjected to "comprehensive program evaluation . .. " Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ "scaffolding" - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-Amen.can students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted some assurance that the comprehensive program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24, 2002, the Board approved the Division of Instruction's "Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools," a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Court's remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen, Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was "inadequate." Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation "completed" by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the court's order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-RI. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-RI. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve African-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshua's appeal of the District Court's September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the district's recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-RI that "Conflict of Interest" must be avoided. LRSD RESPONSE: Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary purpose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate success of the LRSD's early literacy program will - --- - - - ------ - ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page4 be judged by performance on the State's Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA and Observation Surveys. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the "team" process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of"conflict of interest." In order to insure that "conflict of interest" is avoided, the "external consultant" needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the "Program Evaluation Procedures" do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSD's commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSD's best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State's Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see "Accuracy Standards," para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walker's October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto. ------ All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Board's assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Board's approval ofIL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all ofJoshua's concerns. Ifany party has any questions about the LRSD's responses to Joshua's comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD's written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days ofreceipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery) PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Elementary Literacy Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy-Team Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,;Literacy Specialist Melinda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi Davis-Director of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Specialist Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eunice Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa Cleaver-Team Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction Marcelline Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator ~ EXH 18 IT I B - ---- - ------ - - --- - I I I I I I I I I I I Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02 An item analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 reveals that students perform lowest on the geometry strand. (Note-The State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense, geometry, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item, ranking the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data. Program modifications made based on the low performance on geometry items was: Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools. Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the specific geometry items (the released items were available for review). Develop strategies for increasing the focus on geometry in the elementary mathematics curriculum. School by school analysis of 4th Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that were demographically similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum was different from school to school. Schools with a higher level of implementation were having higher student achievement than schools who were not implementing the curriculum at that high level. A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to receive intensive and sustained training to serve as a "coach" for other teachers (See list of Math Support Personnel for LRSD). Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly "coaches" training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg, much of it directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing our elementary mathematics curriculum. Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement among schools was to begin a process of changing the way professional development for teachers is structured. In the past most professional development for elementary mathematics has been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led training on the 3rd grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been to shift more focus on site-based professional development. The "Lesson Study" and "Study Group" approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers to allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs. 2002-03 The same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4th grade Benchmark Data . Results of this analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry . The lowest strands were probability and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on those strands on the Benchmark Exam. The curriculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted in low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determine the "big ideas" or concepts students need to have a deep understanding about in grades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands listed in NCTM Standards and the State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade will do similar work during the summer of 2004. Curriculum resources in grades 1-4 were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the curriculum at certain grade levels. Internet resources, Marilyn Burns and Associates materials, and other materials were identified and compiled into a notebook for use by teachers. Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well on the open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items. Program modifications based on this data were: Developed packets of open-response items for teachers to use with students. Trained teachers to score open-response items using a rubric. Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter or end-ofsemester exams that included open-response items. 4th grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three years caused some schools to be given "School Improvement" status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, African-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1, Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status. A thorough and detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process). The schools that were audited were Fair Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary, Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School). A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings . One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made was to bring in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannel-author of Highly - -------- --- --- Effective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04 All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003 , preschool conference. Item analyses of the 4th Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students. A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probability by added a replacement unit on probability from Marilyn Burns' s materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Burns materials. Three elementary schools on School hnprovement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools. Dr. Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals. 21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools. Additional schools received School Support Audits-Chicot, Bale, Mitchell. Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum. Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4th Grade Benchmark Exam. A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum. Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02 Item analyses of 6th , 8th , Algebra Land Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001-02 Continued District-wide end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus District-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 TI-83 plus calculator training provided for all secondary math teachers Full implementation of high quality standards-based instruction/materials in math for all students in grades K-12 District leveraged support of professional development for all math teachers by providing funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers receiving trainings Lead teachers continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the classroom by conducting professional development workshops and classroom observations; Continued partnership with University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR.) to develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District. The following course was developed and offered during the 2001-02 SY: o Strategies for Teaching Geometry Developed and distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and courses to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathematics courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and :frameworks; The SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) program is an academic student support program for students who will be enrolled in Algebra I the upcoming fall semester. Project THRIVE, the follow-up component of SMART, is a Saturday academy for students currently enrolled in Algebra I. These programs are aligned with the State Goals for Algebra I. Algebra I EOC results of students who participate in these programs are compared with the overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra The agendas for horizontal team meetings (each grade/subject level 6th gradeCalculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark exams. Teachers concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work on modifications in instructional strategies to improve those areas. In addition, trends and patterns are studied to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom. Implemented instruction in Algebra I through Riverdeep software in all high schools 2002-03 Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doing presentations on standards-based activities; Purchased Texas Instruments APPs Suite for Algebra I for all middle and high schools; - - --- - ------ ----- - - - : .. Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were trained Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6th grade - Calculus; Continued to provide professional development for all secondary math teachers on topics including: o Riverdeep Interactive Software o TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses Strategies for Teaching Algebra Integrating the Graphing Calculator Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD; Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics; Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course; 2003-04 Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I- Calculus teachers; Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom- used the TI-Navigator system; Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6th -8th Workshop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus; Continued end-of-quarter tests; 6th -8th grade curriculum revised to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks; Marcelline Carr and Vanessa Cleaver FY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation The LRSD Elementary Literacy Department continued to provide professional development (ELLA, EFFECTIVE LITERACY, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools to support implementation of the LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. The Elementary Literacy Department examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most in need of assistance in the area ofliteracy with particular attention to the academic achievement of African American students and their needs. The data indicated that the writing program was the weak component of the literacy instructional program. The Elementary Literacy Department provided staff development related to writing instruction, and the writing programs in schools were modified to include "best practices." The Spring 2003 CRT Literacy data from several schools reflected the schools' efforts to improve their students' academic achievement in writing. The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the opportunity to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded, provides significant funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies. Twelve schools chose to participate in the project to begin in the fall of 2003 . The project requires the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement. Because of lack of movement in student achievement in literacy, three schools on school improvement decided to move from the Success for All program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation The Elementary Literacy Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by Dr. Ross and developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following: Continue the use of focus groups for each of the professional development programs (ELLA, Effective Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success for All) and develop a table of the most and least effective elements. The information from the focus groups will then be used to modify the District's professional development plan. Compare student data from the CRT and District assessments in each school to compare the academic achievement of African-American students with others as related to the instructional program and provide specific professional development based on the identified needs of the students. ... EXHIBIT ID The staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development: Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small group instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students. Provided a diverse collection of books to low perfonning schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading. Modified the testing schedule ( except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Williams met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American students as compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. The Elementary Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using it to make program modifications or changes. After the consultant's visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the principal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on content area reading and writing. In addition to the professional development being offered on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5th grade teachers to integrate reading and social studies instruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools The Reading First Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) by the LSRD Reading First Coordinator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. The purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Monitoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following: Classroom demonstrations Classroom observations with post observation conference Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program L 3 - The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification; first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests; and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation; first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test; and second and third grade students were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in January 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools' data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly African American, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it was determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the lowperforming schools: phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language, and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation In response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of - "Writing On Demand" and "Constructed Response" . Technical Assistance Technical Assistance in Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools identified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the particular needs of each teacher related to instruction during the 2 hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher. The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs from the following areas: Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers, rearranging classrooms, organizing and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both whole and small group, modeling instructional approaches, demonstrating the use of materials, assessing students and developing instructional plans. Professional books, independent reading books and sets of books for guided reading, as well as organizational materials and center supplies are also provided. Approximately 20 of the schools have employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. ---- - - - - - - --------- 4 2001-2002 Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 1. Teachers attended after school meetings with director to examine data and conduct analysis of scores of ACT AAP tests. 2. English faculty of each school spent a day together with English director and building principa,I in session devoted to best practices for improvement of Ii teracy program. January - March 2002. 3. All building assistant principals at middle school were inserviced by director in literacy program in order to provide for more consistent supervision and coordination by including all administrators in literacy program. 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all middle schools, taking turns hosting, with dedicated topics related to modifying literacy program and practices. 5. Recognizing that secondary teachers have never been trained in the teaching of reading, Dee Bench, consultant from Denver Coalition of Business and Education was employed to lead staff development during summer of '02 for teachers to modify reading strategies and instruction. Four weeks of training took place with teachers (approximately 75) from all four core subjects in attendance. This summer inservice was a modification to include all cross curricular teachers in literacy program. 2002-2003 1. Teachers met with director to assist in production of curriculum for writing in order to be able to consistently deliver quality program elements. Evaluation of current practice and focus on optimum results were goals. Spring - Summer '02. New Writing Curriculum was put into use 02-03. Teachers were inserviced school by school during preschool work days on use of new curriculum. Committee of teachers for curriculum development: Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofner, McClellan High School 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions to introduce new curriculum for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to provide basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall '02. 3. Analysis of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on the ~ EXHIBIT I F mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker. Strategies were developed to practice and teach these skills. 4. Practice kits were developed by the English office and distributed to every middle school teacher for use in modification of literacy program in terms of test preparation. 5. Consultation with outside expert in reading comprehension for older readers to evaluate next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer '02- ' 03 . (Need for literacy coaches in high school was determined and, as a result, three are now in place at three lo:west performing high schools , based on ACT AAP.) 6. Teachers met during swnmer 2003 to evaluate and modify urriculum producing an amending document. Survey given to all English teachers prior to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee to revise English Curriculum: Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program's effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners. Materials were purchased for these students as a result. Summer '03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for one week of further training in reading instruction strategies for secondary students. 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list, Associate Superintendent and director met to discuss literacy program at low performing middle school and to write plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high school principals separately to discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness of program and greater achievement of lower-achieving students. . September '03 . 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice principal to evaluate literacy program and discuss focus for improving student achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate on strategies for improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. Five meetings held, August - October '03 . 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school and teacher by teacher - for recent performances on SAT 9 and ACT AAP to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools. August - September '03. - ---- - ---------- ---- 6. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for middle school to evaluate successes and denote areas needing improvement in program. Sept. '03 . 7. SREB consultant meeting with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. '03 . 8. In response to data, sessions have been held at most schools with some or all of faculty in open-ended responses. Teachers have made many modifications to classroom instruction based on the experiential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric. 9. Implem~tation ofreading intervention for lowest performing ninth and eighth graders at three high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school uses same intervention for sixth and seventh as well. 10. Information and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and key administrators on reading intervention with proposals for expansion of program in 04-05 . 11 . All middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate progress, problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress . Attention to both lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions. Calendars are aligned and coordinated at these meetings. 2. Director and Middle School Specialist meet after school visits to evaluate implementation of literacy program strategies and content and to determine plans for improvement, especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly, at least. 3. Director communicates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildings with principals and teachers. 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with new teachers to improve implementation of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended responses. 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies department in providing literacy best practice training to assist in reading in social studies content. 7. Participation in faculty meetings by director and specialist to modify program implementation across curriculum. 8. Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools. 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June 04) 10. Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004. 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, issues, celebrations, and to communicate openly about the literacy programs. These meetings are separate for middle school and high school. These meetings serve as a means of communicating curriculum items, special events, new developments, and reminders to all English teachers from the district office as well as collaboration. Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Prograi Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACT AAP open-ended responses and rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004 continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program. January,2004 Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey. All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the Read/Write Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004 Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers. Spring 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE March 16, 2004 RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 16, 2004 MAH Enclosures ~~-~ MARK A. HAGEMEIER r Assistant Attorney General - - - - _ _ ___________ ___ __. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED MAR 1 7 2004 . OfflCE DF ~ nrm fdDN!fOfl:Ji'J:G PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Chief Deputy Attorney General Dennis Hansen is no longer actively participating in day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's office. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents the Arkansas Department of Education and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this _J_.b_ day of March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 - - - - - - - ------------------~ 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.