Includes vitae for Terrence J. Roberts, Ph.D., clinical psychology
Little Rock Nine
Attachment 1 VITAE TERRENCE J. ROBERTS, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology EDUCATION: Ph.D. MSW BA - Southern Illinois University, 1976, Psychology - University of California, Los Angeles, 1970 - California State University, Los Angeles, 1967 LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: California State Licensed Psychologist, Lie. #PSY8892 California State Licensed Social Worker, Lie. #5600 EXPERIENCE: Chief executive officer for Terrence J. Roberts & Associates, a management consultation firm active in California since 1975. A dynamic group with a wide range of skills and professional abilities. Workshops and Seminars in the areas of: Stress Management Effective Communication Managing Human Relationships Employment Transition Team Building Management Skills Managing Racial and Ethnic Diversity Self Growth and Development Conflict Resolution Developing Multicultural Awareness Employee Evaluation Staff Development Office of Desegregation Monitoring RLE COPYCreated training programs and materials for employees in the department. Participated in program delivery, evaluation and revision. Provided social welfare services to children and families in the child welfare division. CONSULTATIONXPSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES General psychology and consultation practice office in Pasadena, Ca. Practice includes psychological assessment, psychotherapy for individuals, families, and groups, and psychological consultation to education, business and industry. MEMBERSHIPS: Member, American Psychological Association Board Member, African American Cultural Institute Board Member, Eisenhower World Affairs Institute Board Member, Economic Resources Corporation PUBLICATIONS: "Managing Trial Stress," in Jonathan M. Purver, Douglas R. Young, and James J. Davis III, Trial Handbook For California Lawyers. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1987. ir 'Understanding Choice: Gateway to Sound Mental Health," Journal of Mental Health Administration. Vol.9. No.l. 1978. "Social Welfare in Black America," in Cox, et al, eds. Introduction to Black America: A Cultural Perspective, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974. AWARDS: Spingam Medal, 1957 Annual award presented by NAACP to that person or persons making outstanding .contributions to the area of human rights. Robert S. Abbott Memorial Award, 1958 Annual award presented to those who do most to extend the frontiers of democracy. Outstanding Teacher of the Year, College of Human Resources Southern Illinois University, 1974. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Award, 1982Award commemorating twenty-fifth anniversary of "Little Rock. Nine's" integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Southern Christian Leadership Conference Women Martin Luther King, Jr. "Drum Major for Justice" Award, 1995 Presented in Atlanta, Georgia. REFERENCES: Available upon request.Consultation services provided .to
California Attorneys for Crimmal Justice California Medical Center Cedars Sinai Hospital  Children's Bureau of Southern California Claremont Graduate School Cleveland College of Chiropractic Coca-Cola, Mid-Atlantic Division Crown City Medical Episcopal Diocese, Los Angeles Fairfield Community Hospital Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles Kaiser Foundation King-Drew Medical Center, Los Angeles Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services o Oskar J's Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Pacific Union College Pasadena Community College Pasadena Tournament of Roses Pepperdine University Pomona College _ . Redwood Empire Central Service Association Riverside County Children's Services Department Santa Clara Valley Medical Center The Fielding Institute The March of Dimes Foundation TRW University of California, (Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego) Chair, Master's in Psychology Antioch University, Los Angeles 1993 - present ing curriculum, coordinating student --  , of the Chah include ^(Ste governance of the University, proiatns. creating and managing yearly budgets, Heecrioti and hiring and supervising adjunct faculty i--------- Responsibilities Indstaff' Included in the job description a.s well are oactivities designed to enhance the quality of the program and to maintain connections with psychology programs at schools in the southern California area. Assistant Dean, Student Services UCLA School of Social Welfare 1985 - 1993 Responsible for overall direction of student services including recruitment, admissions, retention, financial aid, student government, and coordination of both MSW and Ph.D. candidate programs. Supervisory responsibilities for student services assistant and student workers. Classroom teaching responsibilities included preparation and delivery of courses in cross-cultural awareness and group conflict and change. Director, Mental Health Services St. Helena Hospital and Health Center Deer Park, CA. 1975 - 1985 General administrative responsibility for seventeen bed acute care mental health unit. Duties included staffing, program development, budget allocation, staff development, quality control, coordination of ancillary services, and other related tasks. Served also as "troubles-shooter" for other units in the hospital providing assessment and consultation around changes in procedures and personnel. Lectured and led groups in Health Center programs including cardiac, alcohol, and pulmonary rehabilitation
smoking cessation
weight management
and eating disorders. Program Director, Social Work Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 1975 - 1978 P^.esponsible for development of social work curriculum and coordination of program within a behavioral science department. Instructor, Social Work Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 1972 - 1975 Taught courses and advised majors in undergraduate social work program. Los Angeles County Children's Service 1. 2. Staff Development Specialist: 1970 - 1972 Child Welfare Worker: 1967 - 1970Attachment 2 BRIEF VITA PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross EDUCATION Institution Pennsylvania State University Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major
Psychology Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Association for Educational Communications & Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvements, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 1974-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1985 - Present Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, Univ, of Memphis, 1995-Present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (Undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate)Attachment 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971, Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980
no longer eligible) Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989. 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1995- present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present SCHOLARSHIP Publications in Refereed Journals
Books Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 115 6 16 170 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S.M., Henry D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., & Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 45-71. Ross, S.M.,Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., & Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 8, 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. & Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success for all on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed at Risk, 2, 29-54.Attachment 2'  Stringfield, S., & Ross, S.M. (1997). A reflection at time three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 8. 151-161. Ross, S. & Smith, L.J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success for All. Psychology in the Schools, 3 4. 171-180. Jayasinghe, M.G. Morrison, G.R. & Ross, S.M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 4 5, 5-20. Ross, S.M., & Smith, L.J. (in press). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal of Intercultural Education. Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., McNelis, M., Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society. 3 0 (3), 326- 357. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., & Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 3 0 (3), 326-357. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. & Casey, J.P. (in press). Bridging the Gap: The effects of the Success for All Programs on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. In 1992,1 was the lead researcher for the school equity study for the State of Alabama Financial Equity Case and am currently lead researcher on a comparable study in Louisiana. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and Dade County (FL) schools and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI).Attachment 3 1998-99 (DRAPT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Total Score
1998 Pearson Correlation Total Score: 1998 1.000 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1998 Sig. (2-tailed) N .285 48 48 Percent of African-American Students: 1998 Pearson Correlation Sig. {2-tailed) .158 .285 48 1.000 48 100 T CO o CD 90 c o a  to C .y E < c s 80 70 60 N Q  Q Q c Q  o  Q   a  B s     Q    0 a c Q  < o 50.   s  s   Q  0) o s G_ 40 30 40 50 60 70 0  Total Score: 1998Attachment A- 1999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Total Score: isyy Percent of African-American Students: 1999 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Total Score: 1999 TOGO 48 -.046 .758 48 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1999 -.046~ .75Q 48 TSoo 48 N I 100 a  a   S o CD CD 90 oa in c CD o D 00 C CO c p < c ra o 80 70' 60 50 < *0  o o s 0- 40. 30 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 s        a   a    Q   a Q  Q   c      a  c    Total Score: 1999FRIDAY. ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-19941 WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE O. BELL, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSEHY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, PA. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 6. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 March 15, 2000 DECEIVED MAR 15 2000 Office OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P-A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. OEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH Of COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A, JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501 > 370-3323 Mr. James W. McCormack United States District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.
Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.
Katherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court. Eastern District. Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed please find the original and copies of plaintiff s Notice of Filing LRSDs Interim Compliance Report to be filed in the captioned case. Please file the original of record and return the extra file marked copies to me in the enclosed envelope. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of the enclosed pleading to counsel for the defendant. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones F:\HOME\JEANNE\Barbara\jef - Irsd v. pcssd clcrk-ll.wpd Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") hereby gives notice of filing the attached Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY
yohn C. Fendiey,Jr! (#92182)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 this 15th day of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway- Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank 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 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Interim Compliance Report Little Rock School District /)ai J RESERVED MAR i 5 2GQfl CfflCEGF DESEGRGAilC
i^lCi^uORI?iS March 15, 2000 (^PR 19 2M IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE COPY OF LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report states: 1. On March 15, 2000, LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2 . Since that time, it has come to LRSD's attention that attachments 1 through 4 of the Interim Compliance Report were inadvertently omitted from the report during printing. 3 . A complete copy of the report, including attachments 1 through 4, are attached to this Motion. LRSD respectfully requests that this report be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the complete copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report attached hereto be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2182) 2 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 this 18th day of April, 2000. on Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank 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 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 . Fendley, Jr. 3HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 April 18, i^CEIVED APR 19 Joaa OTCEGF DKESRBTION MONITORINS SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501) 370-3323 Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - Hand Delivered Desegration Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.
Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.
Katherine Knight, et. al. USDC, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown & Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Motion to Substitute a Complete Copy of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report which we are filing today. As indicated in the motion, attachments 1-4 of LRSDs interim compliance report were inadvertently omitted during the printing process. We are enclosing attachments 1 - 4 which you can insert in the original copy of the report served on you. F:\HOME\FENDLEY\LRSD\pc5sd-brown ct al h.wpd Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILF COPYMs. Brown & Gentlemen April 18,2000 Page 2 If you would rather receive a second and complete copy of the report, please do not hesitate to call, and we will try to provide one. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) F:\HOME\FENDLEY\LRSD\pcssd-brown et al h.wpdRespectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2182) 2 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 this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank 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 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 r FILED f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS APR 25 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:. ERK DEPCLERk- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 RECBVED APR 2 6  orflGtOl- OESEGREGAPOfiMONnORIHS ORDER The Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed a motion to substitute a complete copy of the districts interim compliance report for a copy originally filed March 15, 2000. The motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3355]. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS<^" DAY OF APRIL, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RULE 58 ANi 3 BY_ rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANCf WITH RULE 58 ANQ^R 79(a) FRCP ON__ ' Docket no. 3344. 3 3 5 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECESVSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL MAR 15 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGRESWIOM MONITORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING COMPLIANCE REPORT AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER The Little Rock School District (LRSD or District) for its Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order states: 1. LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan. A brief summary of each section of the Compliance Report is set forth below. 2. Good Faith. During the term of the Revised Plan, LRSD attempted to demonstrate its good faith by complying with its plan obligations. To manifest its good faith commitment for the future, the LRSD Board of Directors (Board) on January 11, 2001, adopted a Covenant for the Future, in which the Board promised to continue fighting discrimination, providing equity and improving the academic achievement of all students. A key component of the Districts success under the Revised Plan was the establishment of Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs) at each school. The CLTs provide the horsepower driving the Districts efforts to improve student achievement. The District invested heavily in providing training to the CLTs and school principals in Total Quality Management (TQM). All principals received intensive TQM training through the Arkansas Leadership Academy. The Office of Desegregation Mcxtftoring filecopyDistricts focus on quality leadership has not gone without recognition. In the fall of 2000, the District received the Quality Commitment Award from the non-profit group Arkansas Quality Award. This award recognized the District as an organization that has a plan and commitment to quality management. The Districts development of leadership talent should pay substantial dividends in the future. 3. Faculty and Staff. LRSD had a strong record in the area of faculty and staff even before adopting the Revised Plan. Even so, the District worked hard to recruit, develop and promote increased numbers of qualified Afncan-Americans. Under the Revised Plan, the District increased the percentage of Afncan-American administrators and teachers, and it increased the number of Afncan-American media specialists, counselors, secondary core subject teachers, early childhood teachers and primary grade teachers. The District also began tracking the distribution of the most experienced and educated teachers in an effort to better ensure an equitable distribution of these teachers. 4. Student Assigiunent. In accordance with the Revised Plan, the District revised student attendance zones to allow students to go to their neighborhood schools to the extent possible. While this resulted in an increase in the number of racially identifiable schools and schools more than 20 percentage points from the district-wide percentage of Afncan-American students, the increases were not dramatic. Moreover, the large number of alternative assignment choices available to students helped minimize any adverse effect resulting from the neighborhood school zone plan. This year twenty-percent of the Districts students chose to attend a school other than their zone school. 5. Special Education. While African-American students remain disproportionately represented among special education students, a review of the Districts programs, policies, and procedures revealed no vestiges of racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or other special needs programs. Furthermore, since 1998-99 the increase in the number of Afncan-American students identified with disabilities has been in proportion to 2their increase in the total student population. There has been only two percent growth in the number of identified students with disabilities since 1998-99, with the percentage of African- American students remaining just about the same. The two percent growth correlates with the increase in total student enrollment over the same period, as well as an increase in the percentage of students qualifying for ffee/reduced lunch eligibility. 6. Discipline. The number of Afncan-American students suspended decreased 20 percent from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. This was consistent with a 21 percent decrease in the total number of disciplinary sanctions. For the same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. Thus, fewer student are committing offenses, and those that do commit offenses are less likely to commit a second offense. The behavior modification plans being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan may account for this decrease. The decrease in discipline sanctions positively impacted parents and teachers perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999-2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninety-one percent of both African-American and white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child has a feeling of belonging at school. Ninety-seven percent of Afncan-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. 7. Extracurricular Activities. Extracurricular activities increased dramatically under the Revised Plan. The number of Afncan-American students participating in extracurricular activities jumped from 2,335 to 5,203 from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. A large part of the increase in participation resulted from a no-cut policy in athletics for middle school six graders and the use of Supplemental Instructional Plans (SIPs). SIPs allow students who otherwise would be academically ineligible for athletics to continue participating in athletics while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. The District also organized an Activities Advisory Board to promote, support and enhance the activities available in the District. 3The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers also reflected the Districts success in the area of extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. 8. Advanced Placement Courses. New policies and procedures for placement of students in advanced courses greatly improved access and participation for all students, and especially African-American students. New programs have the potential of producing exponential growths in both participation and success in advanced courses in the next few years. The increasing number of African-American students participating and succeeding in advanced courses perhaps provides the best reason to be optimistic about the Districts future. With regard to Advanced Placement (AP) courses, the total enrollment of African- American students increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-01an increase of 326 students or 69 percent. The total enrollment of white/other students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01an increase of 531 students or 55 percent. The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. The number of AP courses taught increased from 16 in 1997-98 to 20 in 2000-01
whereas, the average high school in the United States teaches only six AP courses. With regard to high school Pre-AP courses, the total number of high school students enrolled improved from 5065 in 1999-2000 to 5953 in 2000-01an increase of 888 students or 15 percent. African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher ratefrom 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. White/other student enrollment also improvedfrom 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01an increase of 514 or 15 percent. With regard to middle school Pre-AP courses, Afiican-American student enrollment grew 937 from 1999-2000 to 2000-01an increase of 19 percent. White/other student enrollment in 4middle school Pre-AP courses grew 1076 in one yeara 24 percent improvement. The total middle school Pre-AP enrollment grew by 2013 studentsa 22 percent improvement. In contrast to the enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total. In sixth grade Pre-AP/GT English courses there were 908 students enrolled in 2000-01. At the high school level there were 261 students enrolled in English III AP in 2000-01. If the current grade six students stay in the pipeline for advanced course enrollment. the English III AP enrollment could improve 250 percent in a few years. The number of AP examinations taken increased from 422 in 1997-98 to 524 in 1999- 2000an increase of 24 percent. Although the percentage of students earning a 3 or higher on the AP examinations went down from 60 percent in 1997-98 to 52 percent in 1999-2000, the number of students earning a 3 or higher improved from 252 in 1997-98 to 268 in 1999-2000. With regard to the ACT, the most common college entrance exam taken by LRSD students, the number of test-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of 240 or 31 percent. The number of African-American test takers improved from 410 to 570an increase of 160 students or 39 percent. The number of white test takers also increasedfrom 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000an improvement of 77 students or 29 percent. African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000, their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 to 17.4, and their average composite scores from 17.2 to 17.3. While small increases, they represent a substantial accomplishment given that test scores usually decrease when the number of test-takers increases. African-American students willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. 59. Academic Achievement. The District completely revised its policies, procedures, and programs to facilitate and enhance academic achievement of all students, especially African- American students. The District implemented new standards-based curricula, effective teaching strategies, aligned materials, and a re-designed and a comprehensive professional development program in fall 1999 and expanded in fall 2000 in English language arts, mathematics, and science, K-9. School year 2001-02 will see expansions into grades 10-12, as well as K-12 social studies and the beginning of fine arts program planning. Efforts included the addition of several new student support programs, many of which were funded through federal, state, and foundation grants. This District set high expectations for its students by raising graduation standards. Beginning in 2002, seniors must have a minimum of 24 units to graduate, and beginning in 2004, they must have 26 units. In addition, the District published a Recommended Curriculum for high school students that includes eight advanced courses in the 28 units that students are encouraged to complete. The District secured several major grants as a part of its efforts to improve academic achievement. They are as follows: A $3.4 million grant from the National Science Foundation to support improvements in mathematics and science
A $7.8 million Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant from the United States Department of Education to support implementation of new programs aligned with the Districts transition of the junior highs to middle schools
Two multi-million dollar 21* Century Learning Community grants from the United States Department of Education to develop and support after-school and summer programs to support student achievement
A $250,000 planning grant from the Carnegie Foundation to support a year of planning for high school reform and improvements in student achievement. 6An $11 million grant proposal was submitted to the Department of Education in December 2000 to develop magnet curricula at four southwestern Little Rock schools. One challenge the District faces in its effort to improve academic achievement is students arriving for kindergarten without the necessary social or learning skills. To meet this challenge, the District went beyond the requirements of Revised Plan in funding (with no assistance from the State) an early childhood program. The District implemented new four-year-old classes in 1999- 2000 and again in 2000-01. In 2000-01 there were 954 four-year-olds enrolled234 more than the 720 required by the Revised Plan. In addition, early childhood enrollment included 254 children served in the HIPPY program
23 infants, toddlers, and three-year olds at Metropolitan
63 infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds at Rockefeller
and 18 three-year-olds at Washingtonfor a total of 1058. The District implemented new procedures and programs for early childhood education designed to improve childrens kindergarten readiness level. Specifically with regard to reading and language arts, the District developed its PreK-3 Literacy Plan to guide implementation of new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across all schools. The District invested heavily in professional development for all teachers and in the purchase of classroom sets of materials for students. Consistent with the Revised Plan, the District established a two and one-half hour block of time for the teaching of reading and language arts in grades K-3. To measure success of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, the District administers the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in kindergarten through grade two. Both are informal reading inventories that are administered one-on-one. They are administered both in the fall and spring so growth can be measured. The results from the 1999 fall pre-test showed that white kindergarten students began with a score of more than two (a score of two indicates readiness for the next grade level), as compared to African-American students whose fall pre-test score was less than one. Thus, white students began kindergarten with a higher level of readiness. On the spring post-test, the kindergarten class had the highest percentage of students scoring at or 7above readiness (72.2 percent) of any of the three grades tested, perhaps as a result of the new Animated Literacy program in phonemic awareness that was introduced in fall 1999, along with the new ELLA strategies and materials. Both African-American and white students improved significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. On average, African-American kindergarten students post-test scores were 43 percent of that of their white counterparts. First graders performed the poorest of the three grades tested in terms of the percentage of students scoring at or above readiness at the end of the school year (53.6 percent), perhaps indicating the need for the Animated Literacy program for these students. All first graders improved, but white students improved the most, probably because the reading skills that they began the year with enabled them to progress faster. However, the average score for African- American first graders was 65 percent of that of their white peers, suggesting a narrowing of the achievement gap that existed when the students entered the District. All second graders scores improved significantly over the course of the year, just as they did in kindergarten and first grade, with 67.5 percent at or above the readiness level on the spring post-test. On average, African-American students scores were 77 percent of that of their white peers, an increase from 43 percent in kindergarten and 65 percent in first grade. This again suggests that the District may be having success in narrowing the achievement gap which exists when students enter the District. With regard to reading and language arts in the intermediate grades, the District implemented new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across the District in fall 1999, just as with the primary grades. The District emphasized Effective Literacy in professional development for intermediate grade teachers. While the District is still not where it would like to be, the results from the State Benchmark Exam taken by fourth graders showed substantial improvement. Scores improved from 32 percent at the proficient/advanced levels in 1998-99 to 42 percent in 1999-2000an improvement of 31 percent. Afncan-American students improved almost 10 points on the exam. 8a 50 percent improvement, and white students improved four points, a seven percent improvement. The gap between the scores of African-American and white students narrowed six points in 1999-2000, from 42 points to 36 points. The rate of improvement of African-American students was 43 points higher than for white students. The District had many fewer grade four students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 than in 1998-99a reduction of 13 percentage points or a 32 percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the Below Basic levela reduction of 16 percentage points or a 31 percent decrease. White students in the lowest level were reduced by seven percentage points for a 41 percent decrease. The gap between white and African-American students in the Below Basic level was 35 points in 1998-99 and was reduced to 26 points in 1999-2000. Reading scores also improved for fifth graders on the Stanford Achievement Test (9* Edition) (SAT9) from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved five points, for Afncan-American students improved five points, and for white students improved one point. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved five points, for African-American students improved seven points, and for white students improved four points. The achievement gap in reading narrowed from 46 percentile points in 1997-98 to 43 percentile points in 2000-01. Fifth graders' language scores on the SAT9 also improved from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved four points and for Afiican-American students improved six points. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved four points, for Afncan-American student improved seven points. and for white students improved one point. The achievement gap in language narrowed from 36 percentile points in fall 1997 to 30 percentile points in fall 2000. With regard to math and science, the District implemented new standards-based curricula. instructional strategies, and materials in K-9. The District funded these efforts in large part with 9the grant from the National Science Foundation. Major investments occurred in professional development and in the purchase of new materials. The scores of fourth graders on the State Benchmark Exam provide a reason for optimism. The State administered the grade four State Benchmark Exam in mathematics for the second time in spring 2000. The Districts scores showed significant improvements for all students (eight points), for African-American students (seven points), and white students (eight points). Although the gap widened one point between African-American and white students in 1999-2000 (from 45 to 46 points), the percentage improvement for African-American students was much greater than that of white students, 88 percent compared to 15 percent. The Districts grade four as a whole saw fewer students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 as compared to 1998-99a reduction of four percentage points or a seven percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the lowest levela reduction of five percentage points or a seven percent decrease. The gap between white and Afncan-American students in the Below Basic level shrank from 50 points in 1998-99 to 45 points in 1999-2000. Fifth graders' mathematics scores improved slightly on the fall 2000 SAT9, with all students scores up one percentile point and African-American students scores up two percentile points. Compared to fall 1997 SAT9, the average percentile scores for all students improved one point and for Afncan-American students improved four points. The achievement gap narrowed slightly from 1997-98 to 2000-01, from 36 to 32 percentile points. Tenth graders SAT9 mathematics scores also improved. Their teachers had had initial training in a standards-based curriculum, and the students were the first required to take physics in the ninth grade. From 1999-2000 to 2000-01, the average percentile scores for all students improved four points, for African American students improved one point, and for white students improved six points. 10. Parental Involvement. The District already had a plethora of parent and community involvement policies, procedures, and programs when the Revised Plan was approved 10in 1998. Accordingly, the District directed it efforts to widening the outreach, focusing on the school level, and creating a more coherent leadership structure at the district level. The District began including parents and community representatives on CLTs, and the Board approved a Parent Program Restructuring Plan which consolidated all parent programs under the direction of one Collaborative Action Team. 11. Equitable Allocation of Resources. The District developed a unique method of reviewing equity in the allocation of resources. Each year the resource allocation review revealed no correlation between resources allocated to a school and the schools racial composition. Moreover, the District used the results of the review in making resource allocation decisions, such as allocating grant and Title I funding. 12. Guidance and Counseling. The 1999-2000 survey of parents revealed that 94 percent of all parents, both Afncan-American and white/other, who expressed an opinion agreed that help and guidance was available to their child. This perception has proven a reality at least with regard to scholarship money received by African-Americans. Of the 301 scholarships awarded in the 1998-99 school year, 147 or 49 percent went to African-American students totaling $3,256,207 or 47 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. For 1999- 2000 school year, African-American students received a total of 185 scholarships valued at $3,716,358. Afncan-American students represented 56 percent of the scholarship recipients and received 58 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. Afncan-American females outpaced all other groups in the number received (105) and the dollar value of scholarships awarded ($1,967,654). 13. Cultural Sensitivity. Since the 1999-2000 school year, the District has been providing cultural sensitivity training through Dr. Terrence Roberts, one of the Little Rock Nine and a desegregation consultant for the District approved by the Joshua Intervenors. His workshop, entitled Learning to Cope with Differences, provides strategies for dealing with differences in race, ethnicity, gender, economics, disabilities, religion and other characteristics that 11can divide people and create unhealthy tension. The 1999-2000 survey of teachers suggests that the District has done well in this regard. Ninety-four percent of African-American teachers and 93 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that District administrators value diversity. Eighty-eight percent of African-American teachers and 92 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that personnel respond to cultural differences. 14. Compliance. Section 8 of the Revised Plan included a procedure for parties to raise issues related to the Districts compliance. This procedure was invoked on only five occasions, with the last being in December of 1999. All of those issues were resolved without the necessity of court intervention. 15. The Revised Plan obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to achieve certain outcomes, and it has done so. Although the Revised Plan did not obligate LRSD to achieve any particular outcomes, the Compliance Report includes information on outcomes which was used by LRSD to evaluate the programs, policies and procedures being implemented. 16. 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 LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001, indicating the state of LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in the Revised Plan. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, an order should be entered finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. 17. LRSD respectfully requests that the Court issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges to LRSD's compliance pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan. This should be sufficient time given that the parties have known when this report would be filed since April 10, 1998, and that Section 8 of the Revised Plan 12required parties to raise compliance issues as soon as reasonably practicable. See Revised Plan, Section 8.2.1. If any party files a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, LRSD respectfully requests that a hearing on the challenge be held before June 30, 2001, the end of the 2000-2001 school year. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court immediately issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan
that should a challenge be filed by a party, a hearing be held on the challenge before June 30, 2001
and that should no party file a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, that on June 30, 2001, this Court enter an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376
:2Dii Y: Chri^opher Heller.(^108 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by handdelivery on March 15, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank 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 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodward 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller 14 f. MAR 1 
ZOOi omCSOf DESE^feG^noriMO'tWRiHS Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001RECEIVED FILED U.S, DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR? 2001 OFBCEOF OSESREGAPON MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 04 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Intervenors, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Intervenors. * * * * * *  * *   * * * * * *  * * JAME: By- E^W. McCQRMACK, CLERK AZ DEP CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER On March 15, 2001, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed a Compliance Report and asked the Court to issue a Scheduling Order setting a date by which the parties must file any objections or challenges to the report.' The LRSD suggests that the parties be given no more than twenty days within which to file their challenges and, in the event any party files a timely challenge, that the Court schedule a hearing before June 30, 2001. The Court has heard informally from one of the parties, who contends he needs more time to review the report and file challenges. See Attachment A. ^See docket entry 3410. M 141 4Having reviewed the Compliance Report, and considering the informal request for additional time, the Court finds that the parties need more than twenty days to review the many details set forth in the Report and prepare any challenges. After having consulted the Courts own calendar, the Court hereby establishes the following deadlines and hearing dates. Any challenges to the LRSDs Compliance Report must be filed on or before May 18, 2001. If challenges to the report are filed, a hearing will be held on July 5 and July 6,2001, beginning at 9:00 a.m. If necessary, the hearing will continue on August 1 and August 2, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than June 29, 2001. Also before the Court is the motion of Tim C. Humphries to withdraw his appearance as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. The motion [docket entry 3411] is granted.^ The Clerk is directed to remove Mr. Humphries as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. A SO ORDERED this day of April 2001. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR79{a) FRCP ON TH OR 79(. RY Vl ^On February 21,2001, Sammye L. Taylor and Mark Hagemeier entered their appearances as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. See docket entries 3405 & 3406. 2 ) John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright. Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19*, I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger With due respect to the court I e.'. hECEIVEO APR 12 2001 u. QfflCEGF APR O4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS WESTERN DIVISION :OURT A^MES VY MeeSRMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPONSE TO LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER Come now the Joshua Intervenors, through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order, state: 1. Due to undersigned counsels trial schedule and other obligations, additional time is needed to review LRSDs Compliance Report. 2. In addition, undersigned adopts, by reference, his letter to the Court dated March 26, 2001. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. This request is not for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an Order extending the time in which to file their Response LRSDs Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order for an additional thirty days including and up to May 4, 2001 Respectfully submitted.record. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of .John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderso.s Road Little Rock. Abflassas 72210 Phone
(.501) .372-342.5  F.ax (501) 372-.3423 Email: mchenryd^i^swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19", I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and 1 have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who 1 intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.With due respect to the court, 1 remain, JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr Timothy Gauger Sincerely vours. RECEIVEO may 1 8 2001 district OmCEOF desegregation mowtorimq may 1 s 2001 JAMES W IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CffttRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION McCormack, clerk  dep cleric LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSDS COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Because of undersigned counsel busy trial schedule, additional time is needed for undersigned counsel to review the voluminous report of the Little Rock School District. 2. Undersigned counsel has at least a dozen trials scheduled within the next thirty days for which he has been and is being required to prepare and to meet imminent time requirements and deadlines which included the following cases
Name of Case Bennett v. First National Bank Date of Trial May 21, 2001 State of Arkansas v. Tyrone Gamble May 22, 2001 U.S.A. V. Joe Bryant III Beverly Burkett v. USDA Schroeder, et al, v. Ibbottson, et al. Jamie Tims v. DHS May 29, 2001 June 4, 2001 June 4, 2001 June 4, 2001 Court/Judge Prince George Co., Maryland Craighead Co. Circuit Court Judge George Howard Jr. Judge Susan Webber Wright Judge G. Thomas Eisele Judge George Howard Jr.Carolyn Adkins v. McGhee SD June 4, 2001 D. Williams, et al. v Parkcrest Apts. June 6, 2001 J.C. Springer v. Rita Rowland State of AR v. Tremaille Ross State of AR v. Ravin Taylor June 8, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 11, 2001 Tenisha Stewart v. Dr. James Trice June 13, 2001 Judge William Bill Wilson Judge Jim Moody Ouachita County Chancery Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jefferson County Circuit Court 3. In addition, undersigned counsel has been in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the Districts compliance report and related matters. 4. This request is not being made for purposes of delay. 5. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has been contacted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report up to and including June 18, 2001. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-z 8 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent via Jjnited States mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on thi. th day of May, i^Ol. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS rECEH^O MAY 2 9 2001 OFFICE OF desegregation MONlTORiMS CASE NO. 4:82-CV-866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT t  Cl-uFJsED may 1 8 2001 K, CLERK dep clerk DEFENDANT MOTION OBJECTING TO RELEASE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION Comes Franklin A. Davis, former employee of Little Rock School District, representing himself PRO SE, and for his action states: 1. Venue is proper under Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-115 as at least one, if not all. Defendants (LRSD) live in Pulaski County and the cause of action arose in Pulaski County. 2. Jurisdiction is proper as Franklih A. Davis is a resident of Arkansas and all Defendants are residents of the State of Arkansas. 3. Davis became a principal in the Little Rock School District in 1989. 4. In late December of 1994, Defendant Sadie Mitchell, made repeated sexual advances and remarks towards Davis while she was his supervisor. 5. Davis rejected these advances. 6. In December of 1997, the Little Rock School District, Dr. Leslie Camine, Brady Gadberry, and Sadie Mitchell began an orchestration to tortuously interfere with Davis employment contract with the Little Rock School District. 7. This tortuous interference directly led to Davis termination as a principal in the Little Rock School District. Office ol Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPY 8. The Little Rock School District denied Davis his due process rights imder the 5*'' and 14* Amendments of the United States Constitution by terminating his employment without providing Davis adequate notice, adequate opportunity to respond, and a timely hearing. 9. The Little Rock School District materially misrepresented Davis job performance as a principal in the Little Rock School District. 10. The Little Rock School District violated the procedmal due process requirements of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 11. The Little Rock School District wrongfully committed slander and defamation of Davis character and reputation by publicizing unproven facts and allegations claiming Davis had committed sexual harassment to various individuals in the community, in his profession, and state agencies. 12. The Little Rock School District intentionally discriminated against Davis by treating Davis detrimentally and causing his termination based on his race and gender. 13. Davis has suffered emotional, financial and physical damages as a result of these actions caused by the Little Rock School District. 14. Davis has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation and monetary loss of income damage as a result of his termination by the Little Rock School District and their actions in this matter. 215. All of the discriminatory actions the Little Rock School District took against Davis, happened after the LRSD submitted its current Desegregation Plan to this Court. 16. On April 3,2000, the Little Rock School District issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and this Court that it is moving swiftly and in good faith to carry out its revised desegregation plan. Defendant Brady Gadberry was a co-author of this report. 17. As recent as today. May 18, 2001, the Little Rock School Districts scandalous, whitewashing, and dirty linen covered behavior covers the front page of the states largest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. 18. All of the praise lauded on Dr. Les Gamine the past several months has been merely a subterfuge by the Little Rock School District to convince the Honorable Chief Judge Susan Webber Wright to grant their release from federal Court supervision. SUMMARY OF WHAT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DID TO FRANKLIN A. DAVIS SINCE SUBMITTING THEIR REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN TO THIS COURT The bulk of Franklin A. Davis suit against the Little Rock School District, and certain school officials, falls under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1983 which states: Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 3The Little Rock School District is liable under  1983 for violating Franklin A. Davis Due Process rights under the 14*** Amendment. According to current law, Due Process mandates that a Teacher be provided a hearing prior to termination if the nature of the termination involves an attack on the teachers character or reputation. The Supreme Court holds that a teacher, even a non- probationary one, has a property interest that requires a prior termination hearing by the school board to respond to claims that affect his/her good name, reputation, honor, or integrity. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-577 (1972). The Eighth Circuit, which Arkansas falls in, has also held that there is a liberty interest when an employee is fired based on a charge that would impair that employees opportunities within his profession. See Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F. 2d 153, 155-156 (1973)(citing Harnett v. Ulett, 466 F.2d 113,116 (8*** Cir. 1972)). The Eighth Circuit has constantly held that a teacher or government employee, who has been fired under circumstances that tarnish the teachers character and negatively impact future job possibilities, is entitled to & prior termination hearing with full opportunity to respond to the charges. See Wilder man v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (1972)
Scheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District, 488 F.2d 237 (1973)
Buhr v. Buffalo Public School District NO. 38, 509 F.2d 1196 (1974). Franklin A. Davis was a Principal with the Little Rock School District for many years. During all those years, he received outstanding evaluations. In 1995, Sadie Mitchell wrote in his evaluation, An open line of communication (with Assistant Superintendent) was evident. Mr. Davis has been very cooperative and receptive to constructive criticism. She also wrote, His leadership style and relationship is respected 4by personnel, colleagues, parents, students, and the community. She again gave Mr. Davis a near perfect evaluation in 1996. In a mid-year evaluation in February of 1996, Sadie Mitchell wrote, Correspondences to parents, teachers, and District personnel 99 (6 displays that Mr. Davis is a team player. Administrative policies are followed while working well with others. She also gave him an excellent evaluation in June of 1997(the last evaluation Franklin A. Davis received as a LRSD employee). Yet, somehow by December of 1997, six months after his evaluation, Franklin A. Davis was suddenly reassigned. Four months later in April of 1998, Superintendent Les Camine sent a termination letter to Franklin A. Davis. In less than six months, Franklin A. Davis had gone from the Little Rock School Districts exemplary tenured principal to being considered an outcast without the LRSD granting him a hearing. It is noteworthy and interesting that Franklin A. Davis became a principal with the Little Rock School District at the age of twenty-seven (27). Essential to a full understanding of Franklin A. Davis claim against the Little Rock School District is the timing of what occurred. This is the timeline, followed with an explanation of what it means: 1.) June 1997 - Sadie Mitchell gives Franklin A. Davis a great evaluation. 2.) December 30, 1997 - Davis is asked to leave Wilson Elementary and temporarily reassigned. 3.) April 2,1998 - Dr. Camine sends Davis a letter informing Davis of Dr. Camines intent to recommend the School Board terminate Davis and suspending him without pay, which is later temporarily reinstated. 54.) May 4, 1998 - Davis gets an attorney to write the School Board requesting a hearing, with an offer to arbitrate the superintendents recommendation for termination before going before the school board. 5.) May 12,1998 - Dr. Gamine writes Davis agreeing to arbitrate Dr. Gamines termination recommendation before proceeding to the board with it. 6.) December 1, 1998 - Davis still has not had a hearing of any kind, yet the Little Rock School District quits paying Davis. 7.) June 28, 1999 - Fourteen months after Dr. Gamines recommendation, Davis is given an arbitration hearing covering solely the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Davis is awarded back pay, but not reinstated. Franklin A. Davis and the Little Rock School District did come to an understanding to arbitrate under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, however, this was under the assumption that the arbitrator would decide whether he would be terminated if the recommendation went before the School Board. Davis did not expect the School District to terminate him fourteen months later without a hearing. After the understanding to arbitrate whether Davis would be terminated, the Little Rock School District did the following: 1.) Dr. Richard Hurley sent a form to the Arkansas Employment Security Division checking the box stating that Davis was discharged. 2.) The Little Rock School District stopped paying Davis in December of 1998, and 63.) The Little Rock School District sent Davis a letter on June 29, 1998 informing him his insurance would terminate on August 31, 1998. These actions were in direct conflict with the letter from Dr. Gamine, dated May 12, 1998, which stated that the arbitration was to be an alternative method for binding adjudication of the termination recommendation.(Emphasis added). This was not to be an arbitration of a Principal who was already terminated. The Superintendent wrote the letter recommending Davis termination in April of 1998. Davis requested a hearing. All Davis received was an arbitration hearing 14 months later, but after the Little Rock School District terminated him anyway despite his understanding. Although Davis attorney (at that time), did write a letter that included a proposal to arbitrate his claims under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, this letter was prior to his termination. Davis NEVER agreed to waive his right to a full and open hearing in front of the School Board when the Little Rock School District later terminated him. This is what this MOTION OF OBJECTION is about. CONCLUSION I, Franklin A. Davis, have been fighting for justice in this sad and unfortunate situation for nearly four (4) years. The Little Rock School Districts attorney Chris Heller has continuously advised the school district against doing the right thing and reinstating me to my principals job with appropriate back pay and damages. Mr. Heller has the advantage of working for a large law firm and the support of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Throughout the three and a half 7years Ive fought this claim against the Little Rock School District, not once have I been given an opportunity to tell my side of the story. When I file a claim, motion, suit or any type action for redress, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette immediately calls Chris Heller and allow him to bash, slander, defame, and torture my name, character, reputation and integrity. Always without giving me an opportunity to rebut. Within a day or so of my filing this motion, Chris Heller will be given newspaper space to lie and smear me in every way he chooses. Wherefore, Franklin A. Davis, Pro Se, now submits this Motion of Objection with his Prayer that the Little Rock School District is denied release from this Court. Respectfully Submitted, Franklin A. Davis 625 Northwind Circle Conway, AR 72032-3477 501 329-8722 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The imdersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on Chris Heller, attorney for Little Rock School Distri^this day of May, 2001, via certified U.S. Mail. Franklin A. Davis, Pro Se Cc: Judge James M. Moody Dr. Katherine P. Mitchell, LRSD Board President 8REC0VED Iu I I FILED MAY29 2OO1 OfflCEOF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 22 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By:: McCORWIACK, clerk
rk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report. The Court finds that the motion should be, and is hereby, granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Joshua Intervenors are allowed an extension up to and including June 18, 2001, to file any challenges to the LRSDs Compliance Report. DATED this ~^day of May 2001. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY. 3 4 34 [ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By
. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL,, Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * filed JUN 0 5 2001 3 w. McCormack, clerk 11 a No. 4:82CV00866 SWW received JUN 13 200' OFFICE Of DEP CLERK ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSDs Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report.* Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this day of June 2001. CfilEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ^The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTH ^ULE 58 AND/O^9(a) FRCP 3 4 4 1 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 1 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ---------------------------____2 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 BroadwayLittle Rock, AR 72206 501-374 By:_ J- W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel of record on this 15 th day of June, 2001. Jonn . Walker received JUN 2 5 2001 filed U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 20 2001 JAMES By
. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 \jv. McfiORMACK, CLERK M * nDcEDP r *Ci LcEaJR'K' No. 4:82CV(X)866 SWW omcEtt_ _ _ ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further extensions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ay of June 2001. CH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON docket sheet in compliance WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 0N->^O^/^0/ RY 4 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC^OURTr-   - q EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS  rX^iIrMRT kJ.O. L/IO 1 iaIL. I ULJUia I SAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO, l,et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:. DEP CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW DECEIVED / y m <3 - / JUN 2 7 2001 OfflCEOF 0nm0^M0NITQfilN6 JOSHUA INTERVENORS OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. The Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the Court must have before it a written response to the districts plan or other written analysis 1- regarding that plan from the Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The school districts compliance report of March 15,2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of the status of the districts efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan... The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being unitary at this time. and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations. -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUAS SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICTS REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant
the involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district'
and the receipt of the district of a quality interest award from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater. attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black ^Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i. e., the Little Rock Nine he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. -3- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the districts past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The districts evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CLT was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Camine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and ^The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4-has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentally sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case
the actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives
and the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments
and that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the Districts efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained
nor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? The CLT program was at the heart of the Districts efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan. P. 1, Compliance Report. A quality school district meets the needs of all a students. In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itself to providing each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each schools unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student. Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that objective. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this autonomy, some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLTs actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo than a system wide approach would. Moreover, the district does not appear to define success of each student. The districts three (3) page presentation under Section 2.1 is vague, uncertain, without measurement standards and therefore offers no promise of providing equal educational opportunity for all students in the school district. To this point, there is no way for determining the extent to which it has worked. -6-Section 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African- American students. The district committed to hire an expert approved by Joshua. It did so, but it did not properly explain to the Joshua expert, Dr. Terrence Roberts or to Dr. Steven Ross of the University of Memphis how they may help in assisting the district to devise remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affected African American students. Indeed, Joshua has requested, but the district has been unable to provide, a simple listing of problems which adversely affect African American students. Joshua submits that without such a listing there can be no remedies devised to those problems. It appears that Drs. Steven Ross and Terrence Roberts have been used in a consultative role regarding general school educational problems, rather than addressing specific needs of African American students. Joshua concedes that a better faculty which is more sensitive to equitable considerations is more likely to provide better quality instruction. But a better faculty as measured by professional assistance given them should produce changes in the outcomes for Black students. Despite its use of Roberts and Ross and submits that the District has not devised any remedies to any problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affects African American students. Furthermore, a review of the expenditures for both Ross and reflects limited use of their professional resources and services Roberts until Joshua complained about their relative non-use in 1999 and until the district began to compile the present report. Dr. Roberts will acknowledge that his role was enlarged due to his own initiative than that -7- of the districts. This absence of leadership reflects not only upon the planning aspect of the district but upon the results which have been achieved as well. Section 2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. The district has not indicated what it has done to meet the provisions of this section. The interim report suggests that four policies were adopted to address the issue. That occurred more than a year after the Court approved the plan, did not involve Joshua and still provides no assurance that the promise will be fulfilled. Furthermore, there is no monitoring component of the provision. Joshua further notes that the office personnel of the various principals offices tend to reflect the race of the principal. The exception is that the office staffs of Black principal are more likely to be mixed. In terms of assignment, Joshua urges that principal assignments or reassignments in many cases are neither fair nor equitable. Several principals who have a record of mistreatment of Black students or staff appear to have been promoted. Several Black principals seem to have been transferred without cause against their will for no apparent legitimate reason. It can not therefore be said that the staff is being treated, assigned or utilized in a fair and equitable manner. Section 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. The district commits to faculty balance in the schools. According to Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs, African American teachers should be within a range of 10% above -8- or not more than 15% below the overall percentage of African American staff at a particular grade level. The compliance report is in error. Joshua notes next that staff recruitment is not addressed to grade level needs and that there has been no presentation of the number or percentage of African American teachers at each grade level or in each school. These data are necessary in making a utilization analysis of staff. This is important because African American teachers are still appear to be concentrated in non-core areas such as special education, vocational education, remedial education, physical education, etc. Section 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. With respect to this provision, it appears that there has been no material change in the percentage or number of Black media specialists, counselors, core secondary, early childhood and primary grade teachers. The recruitment plan indicates that it provides incentives to attract African American teachers. It is uncertain what those incentives are
and the extent to which they will be continued. It is also uncertain what the problems are with being able to move beyond the numbers that existed in 1997, especially now that it is evident that the white teacher applicant pool is also deficient. Section 2.2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize -9-complaints of favoritism. The salary schedule freezes in arbitrary and racially discriminatory pay practices which refer back to the Williams administration between 1992 to 1996. Section 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. Joshua does not believe that this policy has been effective in practice. Policy GCF RI allows for the principal to interview and make recommendations for teaching positions. There is no process to prevent nepotism and preselection and the policy does not prohibit it. Section 2.2.5. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. The district has no standard for determining when it will fill a vacancy by promotion from within. A promotion from within policy ensures that a higher percentage of African American teachers and staff will be available for consideration for promotion than an open application process. The applicant pool in the former would be between 35%-40% and in the latter, it will be closer to 8%-l 0%. Therefore, when the district opens staff positions to the public at large it is knowingly inviting a significantly whites applicant pool than were it to implement a policy of promotion from within. It is also saying that a white person is preferred for the job. Under this section this is no explanation of how assignments were made in the filling of vacancies for administrative positions which were not filled via promotion. Section 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to -10-promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advance placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. With respect to this Section, the district has merely reported the composition of each school and has fit the teachers into select categories. It has taken no affirmative steps to ensure that the more minority or low achieving schools where the remediation needs are greatest, have equally strong, experienced teachers. Joshua acknowledges that degrees and years of experience by themselves do not confirm superior status of a teacher. But these criteria tend to reflect the ability of school to be perceived as capable of maintaining its staff. That perception enables educational programs to have a better chance of being successfully implemented. Low turnover is a reflection of a schools stability, while high turnover is a reflection of a schools instability. This comment is consistent with earlier district testimony which lamented the fact that Mitchell school had almost every year for 5 or 6 years in succession principal turnover. Joshua observes that Badgett and the Charter School, Baseline, Dodd, Mitchell, Rightsell, Washington, Watson and Woodruff appear to have staff with considerably less than 10 years average experience. These are disproportionately minority schools with concentrations of free and reduced priced lunch eligible students. Cloverdale and Mabelvale fit into that category at the middle school level as do McClellan and Fair at the high school level. The assignment practices of the district are consistent with the relative status as schools of academic excellence or despair. Without doubt, the perceived quality pecking order of schools is as follow: a) high schools: Parkview, Central, Hall, Fair, McClellan -11-b) middle schools: Mann, Pulaski Heights, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, and either Southwest, Cloverdale or Mabelvale We further note that the schools appear to be more evenly balanced except for Cloverdale and Mabelvale Middle and McClellan in 1998-99 with respect to average years of experience than they came to be in 2001. Inasmuch as these schools are mostly minority the plan does not appear to be delivering experienced teachers to these schools or an even basis. In assessing teachers with advanced degrees, the district median or average percentage is not presented. But the schools that have the lowest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees seem to be: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Mabelvale 23% Alternative 25% Metropolitan 23% Rightsell 32% Cloverdale 32% McClellan 49% Geyer Springs 33% Washington 37% Mitchell Baseline 38% 38% The high end schools include: High End Schools High End Middle Schools High Schools Jefferson 74% Mann 59% Parkview 71% Wakefield 71% Central 63% Wilson 68% Hall 56% With respect to teachers with a masters degree plus 9 years or more experience: -12-Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Rightsell 18% Cloverdale 27% McClellan 35% Mabelvale 19% Forest Heights 27% Fair 36% Mitchell 29% Geyer Springs 29% Franklin 32% The high ends of this category reflect as follows: High End Schools High End Middle Schools High Schools Jefferson 63% Mann 52% Parkview 55% Wakefield 67% Pulaski Heights 40% Central 51% Wilson 60% Hall 43% Joshua has some concerns about these categories because of its general impression that there is less stability in the schools that are more heavily minority. Note the following drops between 1998 and 2000 with respect to: a) average years of experience: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Badgett 11.63 to 8.29 Mabelvale 7.9 to 6.15 Fair 12.17 to 8.84 Rightsell 10.5 to 6.65 Cloverdale 9.84 to 8.36 McClellan 9.67 to 7.90 Washington 10.74 to 9.31 Woodruff 9.18 to 7.38 b) masters degree plus 9 or more years: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Geyer Springs 38% to 29% Cloverdale 30% to 27% McClellan 38% to 35% -13-Mitchell 32% to 29% Fair 40% to 36% Mabelvale 19% to 19% Hall 51% to 43% Rightsell 43% to 18% Washington 53% to 33% It is noted that Parkview remains relatively consistent in all of these categories and that Central is not far behind, while McClellan and Fair are relatively consistent but on the other end of the scale. The same is true at the high end with Carver, Brady, Booker, Fair Park, Gibbs, Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Romine, Wakefield, Terry, Williams and Wilson. Al of these schools have higher than average concentration of white students. Joshua, therefore, submits that the schools in the LRSD are not equal with respect to the promises of Section 2.2.6 and that the high schools especially reflect gross concerns of racial inequity. Joshua, in making this point, refers to Section 2.11.1. This section addresses equity in academic honors, awards, scholarships and honor graduate comparisons. At the outset we note that the district has segregated the white grouping of students into white and other. There is no reason for the distinction other than to diminish the degree of favor which white students receive in comparison to Black students. Moreover, the district has lumped nonacademic scholarships which were more likely awarded to minority students and then set forth the total dollar value of scholarships awarded. With these things in mind, we note that the pecking order for scholarships relates to the size of the school but mostly to the reputation of the school and the race of the students in those schools. In 1997-98,of71 honor graduates at Central, 11 were Black
and at Parkview, there were 50 honor graduates of whom 14 were Black. In this respect, we note that neither school has had an -14-African American valedictorian in the past 5 or 6 years (and Central never has). We further note that there are discriminatory nuances in the honor designation categories in those schools as well as at Hall which tend to drive white students into the top positions notwithstanding lower academic achievement and which cause them to obtain honors or awards due Black students. In 1997, approximately 25% of the honor graduates at Parkview were Black
21% were Black in 1999-00. In 1998-99, Joshua brought to the attention of the school district, manipulative practices of the school principal and some of the white staff at Hall High School with respect to altering grade weights of white students. Those practices were reflected in an ombudsman report which established that grades of white students were manipulated in order to accord them honor status. The district now commits that it will work with students to provide equity in academic awards, honors and scholarships. This relates back to the perception of schools. Central and Parkview, and to a lesser extent Hall, appear to extend promises to white students that if they attend those schools that they will meet with academic favor and have that academic favor reflected in awards and scholarships. and to disproportiately white students in their classes. At Hall, where Black upper end achievement has been exceedingly high in the past three years, the district has diminished the relative showing of Black achievement. The chart on page 161 reflects that there were but 13 honor graduates in 1998-99 when there were actually twenty-three of whom, 16 were Black. But the public recognition went to the few white honor students. The district does not intend for a showing to be made that Black students achieve as well, if not better, than white students in certain circumstances where they have the necessary support and resources. The message is thus reinforced that Parkview, Central and Hall are the best schools for white students in that order and that Fair and McClellan dont count for white students. That image drives white students geographically assigned to Fair and McClellan -15-to private schools or to white flight public schools. The charts presented by the district are incongruent with respect to scholarships awarded for honors or academic work. If 70% of the honor graduates in 1998 were white in all the schools, then the scholarship values should reflect that. Instead, they are about equal during that year and in 1999- 2000. African American students received approximately 60% of the scholarships. We believe that the district is not fairly presenting its evidence and that the facts it presents are inaccurate, but they do not detract from the basic point being made in Section 2.2.6. The teachers are largely responsible for the quality of education delivered. In that the teachers of the southwest schools and the schools with high minority populations do not seem to be equal with respect to the criteria delineated in the plan, it becomes easier to understand how the outcomes which may be measured by honor graduate. and scholarships by achievement show them to be in such low standing. The district is aware of the fact that the state scholarships administered by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education have racially discriminatory impact upon Black Little Rock graduates. It has not taken steps to bring this matter to the attention of the ADE as set forth in the state agreement herein. Section 2.2.7. LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. There have not been established procedures for the mandatory reassignments of teachers. Whatever negotiations occurred between Knight and the district did not result in a procedure for that result where required by the necessity of equity. Joshua submits that not one teacher has been assigned by the district from a perceived strong school to a perceived weaker school for the purpose of remediation of achievement disparities. -16-Section 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. The district does not indicate which policies, programs or procedures that it has revised with the but not limited language of Section 2.3. Furthermore, policies JC and JCA have been in effect for only one year. Joshua notes that these policies were approved May 25, 2000 and that there has been no realistic time to assess their effectiveness assuming that they met their purpose in the first place. As noted elsewhere in this set of concerns, it appears that the schools in the southwest are becoming one race and grossly inferior while the schools in Pulaski Heights area and west Little Rock are becoming disproportionately white and superior. The district does not indicate what steps it is taking to prevent these assignment and quality patterns from occurring. Section 3.6. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. With respect to new school construction and school closing, Joshua has not been involved in the meetings of the west Little Rock school site selection committee and to our knowledge, no site has been selected. The location of that site could significantly affect desegregation possibilities or -17- created further desegregation problems. On the other hand, on information and belief, the district plans to close Mitchell, Badgett and Rightsell because of age and poor maintenance. Joshua is concerned that court release could free the district to place the Jefferson replacement school in a site which is disadvantageous to Black pupils. It also leaves open the possibility of keeping Jefferson as a school. This would tend to create greater desegregation burdens upon African American students. Section 2.4. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. First, Joshua has not been involved in the devisation of the promised programs, policies and procedures in this section or any other section. The 504 program is replete with difficulties and programs which tend to impact African American students in a disparate way. As reflected by the charts on page 22, it appears that African American male and female students are over identified. Such identifications have labeling effects which are anathema to a unitary school system. Section 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. The disciplinary programs still tend to be disproportionate. We note that the District has not indicated by gender as it did with respect to the charts on page 22 the students who are actually being suspended. Joshua contends that the suspensions and expulsions are falling most heavily upon African American male students. Some schools are more zero tolerant than others. While the district has diminished the number of overall suspensions, we note that the reduction in white -18- suspensions between 1998 and 2000 was approximately 29%, while the reduction in Black suspensions was approximately 5%. The numbers are roughly equal but the percentages are grossly disparate. This reflects a district still inclined to give more favor to white students. For each Black reducton it makes a white reduction. This is disturbing for if disparate treatment was occurring, the students who benefit from the remedy should be those who suffer rather than those who benefitted all along. Joshua will also point up at a hearing that virtually all the referrals by resource officers and/or district officials to juvenile officials are of Black pupils. White students are seldom referred to those sources when they misbehave. Furthermore, when Black resource officers attempt to respond sensitively to suspensions and referrals to the juvenile or criminal justice system, there is evidence that those resource officers are subject to removal or dislocation. Zero tolerance practices tend to apply generally to Black students and not to white students. Section 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are discipline in a fair and equitable manner. This section has to be constantly subject to review because of the disparate treatment received by Black students, especially Black males. See Section 2.5 above. Joshua also requests that the district provide a breakdown by school and by gender, race and offense of the discipline sanctions imposed upon the students during each of the past 3 years. Section 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students discipline records after the fifth grade an eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. -19-The district has not adopted a policy to apply or define with respect to the best interests of the students. This allows subjective consideration to displace objective consideration. Section 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of Ombudsman the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. Joshua has serious concerns about the ombudsperson position with respect to job description, role and relationship to the administration, duties to students, sufficiency of staff and receptivity of administrators to the efforts of the ombudsperson to investigate complaints. Joshua submits that the Office of Ombudsperson requires a staff, organization, definition of roles and responsibilities and a direct reporting line to the superintendent and the board if the agreed upon expectations are to be realized. Joshua further notes the activities of the ombudsperson are not in this report. His reports, however, demonstrate that there are myriad problems associated with school desegregation implementation which give substance to the need for position in the first place
and which justify court continued supervision in the second place. Section 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Joshua is concerned with the lack of definition with the term students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 95 Until that term is defined and standards set for implementation, there can be no assurance that the plan being developed addresses the purposes of this section and are being administered in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Moreover, there is no showing how the District has -20- applied these plans since 1997 in order to assist Black students. Section 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses the gifted and talented program. Joshua is grossly concerned about the extracurricular section. First, the figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The administration of the advanced placement program gives rise to concerns that white students are being placed more into AP courses in earlier points in their lives and that in effect when one views the participation of academic activities one will find that those are largely participated in by white students. With respect to football, basketball and track, those activities are disproportionately Black. The Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) gives rise to the impression that Black students are being place therein in order to qualify them for athletic participation. In any case, extra curricular participation is not as the district presents it. The chart on page 28 shows that co-cunicular participation has been increasing at the same rate for Black students over the past three years. Joshua is not familiar with an Activities Advisory Board and how it relates to having met desegregation goals and objectives, and has not been invited to participate in it. Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African- American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement -21-courses. There has been no assessment of the training programs for teachers and counselors for each of the last three years in order to assist them in identifying and encouraging African American students participation in honors, enriched and advanced placement courses. These sections demonstrate that programs are beginning to be implemented for the first time in 2001 and afterwards. These programs are 3 years late, with no evaluation criteria or component and are rife with problems, and no track record! For example, the board is establishing different graduation seals, using standards that are arbitrary and which particularly favor white students. Joshua is completely opposed to a system where Black children are not taught on the same basis as white children and then have that lack of teaching rubbed into their faces at graduation when they are denied honors. We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation. We note also that in the elementary and junior high grades, there have been hundreds of Black pupils whose standardized test scores place them in the 90+ percentiles. While the district says it is trying to get everybody onto the same playing field, on an equal basis, establishing criteria which give the impression that white students are inherently unequal is patently unfair. In reviewing the additional courses and other activities, Joshua has general concerns about those programs and activities that are set forth on pages 32-35. There is no educational justification for an International Baccalaureate Program at Cloverdale Middle and McClellan High School. These students do not have the resources available to them as do students at Parkview and Central. The gifted participation remains as it has been, mostly white at the elementary schools and the percentage at the secondary schools appears to be moving up from 50% to 52%. As with white -22- and Black students with discipline, the practice to provide a one for one benefit for white pupils any time Black pupils advance. The District presents a chart to show African American student enrollment is increasing in advanced placement courses, p. 38. Joshua observes that there is no real change. In 1997, 33% of those students were minority and in 2000, 35% were minority. While the number increased from 33 to 39 in tw'o years, it dropped to where it was in 1997. The African American totals appear to have increased from 471 in 1997 to 797 in 2001, a difference of 326. The non black numbers. however, increased from 964 to 1495, a difference of 531. Taking into account the fact that non Black students are only approximately one third of the school system, their numbers increased to a point that virtually every non-black student is in an AP class. That translates into mostly white classes for white or non-black pupils. It is projected that for next school year there will be 2230 non Black students in the high schools. Assuming that at least 1495 of them as was the case last year are in AP courses, then 67%, or two of every three of the white students are in AP courses. Assuming that there will be 4509 Black students in the high schools next year and that 797 will be in AP courses that means that only 17%, or less than two of every ten of the Black students will be in AP courses. We submit that there is no way under the sun that a white population can be so much smarter than a Black population whoever makes the assessment. On the percentages alone, that means that the white students are almost four times more likely, i.e. smarter, to be placed into AP courses than Black students. It means that every time an additional Black student is placed into an AP course, 1.5 white students are placed in to AP classes. The further ahead we get, the further behind we get comment often made by African American citizens is given dramatic proof by this single statistic. There are some interesting patterns of enrollment in AP courses. Black students are -23- enrolled more in AP American history then any other subject. White students are enrolled more in English IV, English III and Environmental Science and Spanish IV. Less than 10% of the students
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 Resoources.