WMurscr
lhw r iKri C- ^41 H02/04 AUG 14 '01 10:08 John W. Walker, P.A, Attorney AT Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3768 PAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 244-5344 August 14, 2001 or counsel ROBERT McHenry. RA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hskcesson Road Litilz Rock, aiucansas 72210 Phons: (SOl) S72-S426 Kai (601) 372-8428 Email: mchanrydSswbeU.net Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris
I take your letter to be simply a rejection of my request that I be informed of meetings of the compliance committee and of all proposals before the compliance committee has had an opportunity to take a position on them. The rest of your letter is a set of self-serving statements with which I disagree. I will respond to several of them, however, as follows
First, I disagree with your premise. 1 also disagree that you added 8.3 to enable us to have a remedy in the event the District failed to develop the promised programs, policies, and procedures. 1 always expected to be and still expect to be involved before you all develop any new programs, policies or procedures that have anything to do with implementation of desegregation. I have never wavered from that position. That is different from monitoring with respect to compliance programs. Chic dealt with actual compliance and the other dealt with setting into place programs, policies and procedures that will help facilitate desegregation and reduce compliance problems in the first place Second, you indicate that 1 agreed to be paid $150,000.00 for three years for monitoring. In doing so, you attempt to diminish me and beyond that you deprecate me as well by indicating that my principles are subject to purchase. I never agreed to accept $45,000-50,000 a year for monitoring. We agreed to a total settlement amount for past and future fees in the amount of $850,000.00 approximately. The $150,000.00 was simply deferred. Third, dont talk to me anymore about bad faith. You and Les Gamine totally mislead me from day one. You mislead the Court as well. You withheld data from ODM, Drs. Ross and Roberts and me. Because of that, the District is made to appear that it never had any intent to desegregate as promised. You and Clay Fendley appear to me to have schemed to evade and avoid compliance. Now, you try to make me the heavy for the poor state of compliance that you are in. Beyond that, you specifically kept me out of discussions regarding compliance and discussions with the State of Arkansas regarding loan forgiveness. The morning and nightlHw r iwi e:41 HUb 14 01 10:09 Page 2 - Letter to Christopher Heller August 14, 2001 eating meetings which you and Les Gamine had with me, of which there will be no more, we designed to placate and direct me away from the districts activities so that I would not be folly aware of the various nefarious efforts that you. Clay and Les Camme were engineering. were Fourth, you suggest that in three years we have not proposed a single program, policy ira k</ xk *L- j
____ , . __ _ r O* J procedure by which to assist the district in meeting its obligations. This simply is wrong, but I or need not address it. You now indicate that since trial I have barged into the offices of District admimstrators unannounced and uninvited and other things. You may say what you wish with respect to my activities. I do not agree, however I notice that you have listed six people as receiving copies. Not one of those people wilt inform you that I have made a request that either of them verbally provide any information to me.............................. since the dont talk to Walker (letter) e-mail' from you. My requests, many of which remain unanswered, have been in writing. If you think that I have breached the Judges order, specify your allegations stating the person, place, and time and witnesses, if any. Otherwise, apologize. Fifth, you now indicate that is inappropriate for me to be personally involved in compliance committee meetings. That is a new position which is contrary to our agreement. Beyond that, it is more appropriate for me to be involved than for you and Clay because represent the paities in quest of remedy. You both have been obstructionists and now prevaricate. It is not enough for the policies, etc. to be presented to me at the time they are being presented to the Board! The idea was clear that we would work out and work through the programs, policies and procedures before they were presented to the Board in the first place Th,, fact that I did not appear before the Board is due to the fact that you and Les Gamine materially we The mislead me about what was taking place in the District, withheld information and informed me of **kA .l
_____,*1_______________I. _ the many positive things that were happening, when in fact, they were not happening. Finally, it is evident that good faith was not in you or in the district. You mislead the Board, the community, the Court and me as well. This was the administration in action. Those administrators followed your lead! They sought to cover up, by use of slick language, noncompliance. Now your letter to me is another attempt to cloud reality and to deflect from the poor judgment which you and Clay made in letting this District go forward in this court proceeding at this time. You agreed that Little Rock was not ready for unitary status with the caveat that Little Rock was better than other districts and that the covenant should protect the interests ot my clients. I did not agree and I told vou that in January, February, March. April, Kfay and June when 1 proposed to you that we delay your motion and then meet regularly, with defined obiecuves. to address the problems which needed to be worked out to effectively deliver Sfluai educ^ional opportunity to black children Instead, you deliberately chose to put me into the position of having to file objections. You made a money proposal which reflected that you thought you could buy me. You clearly dont know me! My proposal was never about money for myself. Rather, it was to address the issue with the State differently and to seek further benefits from the State that would benefit Black children rather than all" children. When you say all , it is now clear that you mean non-Black children. Sure, I want adequate compensation for attentionOUIO f' WHLKtK LHW H IKPl 241 P04Z04 AUG 14 01 10:09 Page 3 - Letter to Christopher Heller August 14, 2001 my work. You receive it and there is no public issue or discussion about it and there is no limit your charges. on 1 have readily met with you, Les Carnine and other district staff people when called upon, provided I received adequate notice, and have sought to be involved on a continual basis with the Districts purponed compliance efforts. I have employed at least three people who regularly engaged in monitoring activities. That reflects good faith on our part. Your office, on the other hand, has lead the District into a more racially segregated posture than it was three years ago and with all of that, you try to shift the blame onto me. Shame on you, Heller. You are supposed to be a maa, not less. Your conduct, advice, actions, and crying are traditional and typical. I need say no more. Check your own fees, however, and see who benefits from continuing this case! Inasmuch as you have seen fit to copy your associate superintendents and Dr. James, in your effon to nut me in my place, they are being copied with this letter as is the ODM. The question yet remains about meeting the needs of Black children. For Black children, is there no balm in [the Little Rock School District] ? Is there no physician [here]? Apparently, not. We war when we promised to make peace and to educate Black children. It cannot end until justice is delivered to those children. Sincerely, i?tohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann Marshall Ms. Sadie Mitchell Mr. Junious Babbs Dr. Don Stewart Mr Brady Gadberry mum John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile -244-5433 August 15, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLnet Mr. Chris Heller Triday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: I am in receipt of your letter and motion. First of all, you have stated to the Court that LRSD has attempted to confer with Joshua, but Joshua refused to narrow the request or allow LRSD the time needed to respond. I have no record of either a writing or telephone call which allows you to make that contention. Secondly, please confirm or deny that you have or your office has advised the principals to destroy, erase, alter or modify their e-mail correspondence. If you deny, please let me know what information you have on this subject as the official position of the Little Rock School District. incerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record received AUG 17 zoni OFFICE OF desegregkhon monitoring Friday Eldredge & Clark IIRRRCMEL H. FRIDAY (1<3ZZ-199-I> WILLIAM H. SUn'ON. PA. BYRUM M. nEMAN. JR PA. JOED. BULL. PA. jAMSA.BUmY. PJK. I'RBDERICXB. UMtRY. Pu\. USCaR B> RAVIR. JR.. rA. JAMES C. CLARK. JE.. PA. THOMAS P. LEGCSTT. Pa. JOHN OEWEY WATSON. PA. PAUL B. BNHaM hi. pa. larry W.BUBKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIPF MKBCl. JL. Pa. JAMES EPWARO HARRU. PA. J. PHIUIP MALCOM. PA JAHGSM. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMbSM. SAXTON. PA. J. SHEPnERD RLSSELL IlL PA, 13ONALD H. bacon. P.A. W1U4AM THOMAS BAXTER, PA barky C. rfUH, PA. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P A JOSEPH U. HWT.JK., pa. nUZABETH KOttKEN MUEPAT. PA. CKUSTOPHEK lICVUtE. PA LAURA HEMSLEY SMITH. PA. XOlCRTS. FHAFEE. P.A. WILLIAM M. CRIFFIN UI. PA MICHAEL S. MOOKK. PA OIAMCS. MACKEY. PA Walter ul pa. KEVIN A CRASS. PA. WJLUAM a. VADUliLL. JRm PA SCOTT J. LAMCaTTER. PA. M. OAYLE COW.BY. Pa. ROEfiRT B. BEACH. JR.. PA I. LEt BROWN. PA James c. eAniu.jiu ha#.rta.ucht.pa. SCOTT H. TUCKER, PA. cutaltom wade, pa PRICE C. CaRPWJER. pa TONIA P.JOnW. Pa UAVIO O. WlUOH. Pa ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fddayflrin.cofR 2000 neotONs center 400 WEST CAPITOL little rock. ARKANSAS 72201-3403 telephone 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376*2147 297 east MILLSAP, SUITE 7 FAVeTTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72763 TELEPHONE 50t<eBS-36H FAX S0V9eS*21*7 20 NORTH FIFTH STREET eLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 7231$ telCRhOnb arO'Yaa-ziQB FAX 870>ri2-2Sll JT.FFREY H. MOORE. P.A OaVIOM. CKAJ'. fA CAKLa CUNHXU cpainhouk. JOHN C. FfiHntEY. JV FA. JONAHH KllkAHATH CONIOUO. P.A R. CHRlSTOmWK VA>SOH. PA. CRSCORT O.TATlQR. FA. TONY L WILCOX, P.A F&AM C. HICKMAN. PA. >8TTY J. DtMOKT. PA. lymuaM. johmsoh. pa. JAMES V. Smith, pa. CUFTORO W. nUNKETT, DANibU V. HEKKlNOrOH. PA. MARVIN U CHILOeilS X. COLEMAN WDSTRROOK JR ALUSON j.cornwdu. kLLUN U. OWENS JASON 0. HKHDREN MUCIB.npWRU. MICHAEL E. KAKHQY KbVLT MUMMY MCQUREN JOSCTK MCKAT ALbXAHDRA A. 1F8AH IAYT.TaYLC*. martin a. KASTSN 0AYAN W. DUKk jOSSKi C. wicholS iwliiVT. smith RYAN A. ROVMAH TIMOTHY C. KXkLL T. MICIIB.U
ATOR KARSN S.MAlBF.ItT Sarah m. ccn'ON eouMcc. M. CLARK WILLIaM I- TERRY WILLIAM L. Patton, jr. H.T. IARZLLLMI. Pa. JOHN C. ECltOU. PA a.D. WCaLLIFTER C. FGNDLtY, JB- LITTUC ROCK TKt Ml<S7*aS2a FAX August 16,2001 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 RE
LRSD vs. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Attached please find an August 15,2001, FOIA request from Mr. John Walker requesting emails of all principals and administrators in the District. Our response is also attached. We would like to place this FOIA request on the table for discussion at the hearing on our Motion for Protective Order. Also attached please find Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt and the accompanying brief. If possible we would tike for the Court to consider this motion at tomonows hearing as well. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, John C.Tendley, Jr. JCF/bgb attachment(s) cc: Dr. Ken James (via fax) Mr. John Walker (via fax) Mr. Richard Roachell (via fax) Ms. Ann Marshall (via fax) Ms. Sanunye L. Taylor (via fax) Mr. Steve Jones (via fax) Mr. Sam Jones (via fax) RVHOMESSBroonMndleyUASD^iidge hjW3813744107 URLKER UAU FJWl HJts x:i 't31 1^:30 leiuud JOHNW.WaZXSR SfUWNCHItDB Mr. John Ruffin Infomwoion Services LItde Rode School District SIOW. Markham LittloRock,AikaiiS8a 72201 Dimt Mr. Ruffin: John W.Wau(EK,RA. ATToaimATtw iTsaBioMsmr LmuReex. Aoumbas 78206 Taunom^l) 374.3758 August 15,2001 MBESTIU OOUNSBb attS unw itm AnuMAii Ttiio Pma: (SOU sn-MU - rx (nt) m-Msa EMUI.
odHBqeawMLMt Thia nquesi is pwsuant to the Aikaosas FOIA. Plaan toake avall^lc for review and inspection all e-mails foam the main server (under your direction} for all adaiinisnajore and priocipals who have anything to do with Implementation of the Dinriot's Desegregation Plan. Mey we begin our review on Mondsy, Aogw 20.2001 at 10.*OO aJS.7 Please advise by return fbcslmlle. JWW
|p I Clay F.eRidley - LRSD v. PCSSD MV** Page ll From: To
Date: Subject: Clay Fendley FAX: Mr. John Walker@3744187 8/16/01 11:22AM LRSD V. PCSSD This is in response to your FOIA request of August 15, 2001, to Mr. John Ruffins. Mr. Ruffins advises that he does not have access to e-mails on District servers. E-mails must be accessed via the desktop computer of the user. Accordingly, Mr. Ruffins is not the "custodian" of all e-mails. You have requested the e-mails of all administrators and principals who have anything to do with implementation of the District's Desegregation Plan." This would be every administrator and principal In the District. Please be advised that we intend to bring this request to the attention of the Judge Wright for discussion at the hearing on our Motion for Protective Order. " Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: fendley@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-3323 Direct Fax 501-244-5341 CC
James, KenSfcJ Wcf IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT. ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Motion for Contempt states: 1. At the June 29,2001, hearing in this case, LRSD asked the Court to prohibit attorney John Walker from violating Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and to cease contacting LRSD representatives outside the presence of counsel for LRSD. This Court ruled as follows: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, thats true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that regard, even though you are a public institution. Transcript, p. 45. 2. Attorney Walker has flagrantly violated the Court's order. Most recently on August 15,2001, attorney Walker barged into and interrupted a meeting between Jo Evelyn Elston, LRSD Director of Pupil Services, and Dr. Terrence Roberts. Attorney Walker confronted Ms. Elston with allegations that all African-American students in Advanced Placement ("AP) courses were flunking. LRSD denies these allegations. 3. On June 30,2001, counsel for Joshua called and spoke on the telephone with James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman, and suggested that Washington testify that he feared for his job if he told the truth. As the Court heard, Washington did not so testify.ity uuo 4, On July 19,2001, attorney Walker walked into a closed door meeting in the office of Dr. Don Stewart. The apparent purpose of this intrusion was intimidation. Attorney Walker pulled up a chair and sat down for a short period of time and then left. 5. Upon mfoimation and belief, there are likely other incidents of which counsel for LRSD have not been made aware. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that attorney John Walker be held in contempt
that he again be ordered not to contact LRSD personnel outside the presence of counsel for LRSD
that the Court issue an appropriate sanction for violations of the Court's order of June 29, 2001
that ,. an escalating sanction be established for future violations
that Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein
and that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. 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
Christopher Heller (#81083)! ' John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2ity uu I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on August 16, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & 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 Roachcll Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Dese^cgation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sanunye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller j ) John C. Fendley, Jr. FAHOMSVENbLEYOJtSD 2MIla>.i<ii.eoiaan|.>|al 3lej uuo IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL J' ' INTERVENORS MEMORANDT IM W1HEF TN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MCTW FOR COOTBiil^ This Court has authority to hold attorney John Walker in contempt under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) and the Court's inherent power. See See Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp-2d 1118,1125-26 (E.D, Ark. 1999). Two requirements must be met before a party may be held in contempt. First, the court must have fashioned a clear and reasonably specific order, and second, the party must violate that order. At the June 29, 2001, hearing in this case, LRSD asked the Court to prohibit attorney Walker from violating Rule 42 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and to cease contacting LRSD representatives outside the presence of counsel for LRSD. This Court issued a clear and reasonably specific order in response to that request. The Court stated as follows: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, that's true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that regard, even though you are a public institution. Transcript, p. 45. Attorney Walker has violated that Order on at least three occasions. The most recent violation occurred August 15,2001. Attorney Walker barged into and interrupted a meeting between Jo Evelyn Elston, LRSD Director of Pupil Services, and Dr. Terrence Roberts. Attorney Walker confronted Ms. Elston with allegations that all African-American students in Advanceduuj> Placement ("AP") courses were flunking. Additionally, on June 30,2001, attorney Walker called and spoke on the telephone with James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman, and suggested that Washington testify that he feared for his job if he told the truth. On July 19,2001, anomey Walker walked into a closed door meeting in the office of Dr. Don Stewart. The apparent purpose of this intrusion was simply intimidation. Attorney Walker sat in the meeting for a short period of time without comment and then left. Attorney Walkers conduct on these dates clearly violates the Court's Order of June 29, and he should be held in contempt for those violations. Moreover, Attorney Walker's conduct violates Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct. The Eighth Circuit qrheld a district court's sanction of an attorney for violating Rule 4.2. See Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787 fS*** Cir. 19981. After discussing the violation of Rule 4.2, the Eighth Circuit stated, "These practices were evidently committed in furtherance of the case pending before the court. The court has power to discipline attorneys who appear before it." Id. at 790. Likewise, this Court should sanction attorney Walker for his violations of Rule 4.2. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY:. M.U C- 4yWzUA^ vA Christopher Heller (#810^3) T John C. Pendley, Jr. (#92182). 2t|U uxu CERTinCATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on August 16,2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & 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 Finn 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Dese^gation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr, FAHOME''FENDLY'iLfiP 200 I\des-niouoent8ntpi>bn.wp4 3rage i.ot.J I KasaMC5ty COSl s>ssnjgffi3g5_. -j^-gf^ggAce-, j^cAtauom- ^*<- CASEStl ssQs: ixs * Home Local T-ttB CAREER I mail this story ! Plain text for onntina Judge firm on demunds for KC school board i&quirv Sy DEANN SMTrS - TJte Kansas Ci^' Siar S
IS ti-S..-Liisirfci.,hiife_I}eac. on Liitffijiiay. .siKrdjaamK_^twi8i,aiBi.iS3ai_siitne-- grrwmd m. .te.dEromdsJfer.mv^sti?5^^ ' ' hiEK3iQCE^Cinirt-ian^^ case: ln.rn3eLitrZxvfttf)EoJta2tftt
..rjaiue..tfaK rKn-sed.to
te3ir nm^esiigarinm . ls7ajd
p3taM3^-..2oH jjjtCTSjnjarjagEJRCjJt, . ti5r'.&^JEl -Bst- iS7.i^!55^1-.S
"fer :aE'pmf-iaaatram%
i^iS--a5'-:asais-'c^^ nMJitw'CEarisfc<:^^ raibgrlaaa tuu-tiinc mvesfe^Ui-irs Whipple also defined .micromanagement as vmiippie board members taking-actions that exceed their statutory authority or acting contrary to district policy or procedure. In a second order, Whipple gave the district and the plaintiffs in the ca3&ixnih.Jli^.3.1 ja t^udSii&^xleiaded hifctnnariwa pnanasis itjwaid meeiunLrnmTrxriieiKtt^iaJ,^ mriuri.n^rrh>5Jj!n...thK. achi?3K3iH3a. hsSwsic Nark-irad. wtee .anrtrn.t.'-.. "SevaUse^tob'-TU'affy by uiv rdraufeif
/ uAf its cbnrl-rorderfeti bbJigatidhs, the court will grant no further extensions of time on its request for information on the progress of tire (districts') court-ordered obligations," Whipple wrote. Mile.Delaney, an attorney .for the district, declined comment. Arthur A. Benson.U, attorney tor the plaintifJachoolchildren, was out of town and could.not be .reached. http
//www.kcstar.cQmyitemypages/local.pat,iQcaL'3acce6flJ.816,tml U8/17/2UU1 I fage 2 ot:3 The school board .is expected to discuss the orders during.its Tuesday night.meering. including whether to appeal to the Sth. U.S. Circuit-Court of Appeals. In. addition, to backing ofii a.previous order for fiiiJ.-time investigatnrs. Whipple dropped a directive to allow .McClain and the .investigators to attend closed board meetings. O.n June .19, Whipple directed.McClam to .hire .invest!gators to .look .into allegations that-school. board members engaged in.micromanagement, and patronage. .He saidMcClain did.not.have to provide the district with advance notice of investigations. .He also said .McClain and .his investigators could attend closed .meetings of the school board and its. committees. The district .filed a.motiQn .fQr.reconsideratiQn and asked Whipple to sharply limit the investigations. Benson, asked for a part-time investigator on an as-nesded basis. Benson.and the district asked tor a definition of. niicromanafiement, and opposed allowing.McClain and .investigators to attend closed meetings. On Thursday, Whipple said.he wouldauthorize hiring an. investigator to work up to 20.hours per week. The district must pay for the investigator and administrative staS: Whippie saidthatafiter four months he would decide whether the investigator should be retained, and on a part- or fid J-time basis. Whipple made it clear that.he would change his mmd .on. notallowing .investigators to attend closed board .meetings .if.he .learned the board was "not strictly complying with.the Missouri. Sunshine Law. ft .He rejected the district's assertion that he had.no authority to investigate allegations, of patronage or micromanagement. He saidthe federal appeals court .had directed him "to spare.no effort" in eliminating vestiges of desegregation. achievement gap," he said. 'One vestige of discrimination remaining within the (district) is an He said.if "a culture of .micromanagement and patronage" existed among board members, it would.handicap their efforts to improve student achievement and.reform the district. Whipple saidknowing whether micromanagement and patronage exist means, the "brief intrusion." on. the district "pales .in comparison to the likely benefit." "Tire court also reminds the (district) that.it.was. the (district) itself that httpL/www.kcstar. comyitem7pages/local,pat,Iocal/3acce6W. 816,.html 08/17/20UI utMAfW ixtjjj.v/u.IVl. IKi^SGIJUUI.UUttl.U inquiry Page 3 of3 invited .investigation into allegations of corrupt governance," Whipple wrote. He said he would nor.require advance notice of investigations, because of the danger of tainted or Jost evidence. Still.pending befcne Whipple is. the districfs reqaest.&r hini.to -t^inquisJi court control .in student assignment, capital improvements. finances and transportation. -In one of the orders Thursday, he said the district's recent .report on what still needed to be done to eliminate the vestiges of segregation. lacked specificity. He said he would.not tolerate as. an. excuse the recent departure of .Benjamin.Demps Jr. as Superintendent and the appointment of.Bernard Taylor Jr. as. his replacement. To.reach.DeAnn Smith, education writer, call (816) 234-4412 or send e- mail to dsnijth(2ikcstar.com. All content 2001 The Kansas Citv Siar httpCi wwwikcittar.coiiL'neinzpiiif^'itJCiiLpaiduciiL JaccefeiU 8Tn..niiiii . OS'! 2UUIJOHN W. WALKES SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 deceives AUG 2 7 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGRf GATIGN MOW/TOftlMQ OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendehson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydigswbell.iiet Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 17, 2001 Mr. John C. Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2900 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: I have spoken with Dr. Terrence Roberts, after providing him a copy of your motion, and he has provided the attached response for your information. I am bringing this response to the attention of the Court. You also made other allegations regarding Mr. James Washington and Dr. Don Stewart. Would you kindly favor me with their affidavits as well as the affidavit of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, if you intend to have these matters addressed with the Court today. I remind you that we spoke with Mr. James Washington in your presence and that he has already testified. He testimony contradicts your contentions. With respect to Dr. Stewart, I am unaware of what your contention is. Are you suggesting that I asked Dr. Stewart to provide to me information outside your presence? Please let me have this information from you by return facsimile before our hearing this afternoon. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js Attachment cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Dr. Terrence J. Roberts Ms. Ann S. Marshall August 17, 2001 Nir John Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Terrence J, Roberts, PhD. P.O Box 96 Pasadena, CA91102 (626) 644-4956 Mr John W, Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 received OfflCEOF DESESRESMlOHttOWniWNfi AUQ27 2001 Dear Mr. Fendley and Mr. Walker: I It was brought to my attention this morning by Mr. John Walker that a motion to cite Mr. John Walker in contempt of court was made by Mr. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. I Jylr provided me with the motion. I am addressing the facts in paragraph 2 of the motion. I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Mr. Walker and twu uFiiiis Vv'czc itiVilou into her offices. Mr. Walker did not barge into Ms. Elstons office. Mr. Walker was cognizant of M I'Ciefore, he addressed his statements io me in order to cSaiify ie5i=.e being discussed between Ms. Elston nn.d tv**"* i.u I i I { f 1 i Terrence J. Roberts, P Plcssc contAct m& iF AdditiQi^Al truOini.^iiv.M Sinccreiy, fii I I I I (I John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 17, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendeeson Road Little Rock, Aekansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.xiet Mr. John C. Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: I have spoken with Dr. Terrence Roberts, after providing him a copy of your motion, and he has provided the attached response for your information. I am bringing this response to the attention of the Court. You also made other allegations regarding Mr. James Washington and Dr. Don Stewart. Would you kindly favor me with their affidavits as well as the affidavit of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, if you intend to have these matters addressed with the Court today. I remind you that we spoke with Mr. James Washington in your presence and that he has uailirveaa.>dayj tLevsotitfmievdu.. xHxec tLeCstdiimuiiouniiyy bcuoiniLtridaudiii/cLtbs yyuoLuiir ccooiniiteennTtiioonuss.. WwiiLthii rreessppcecctt ttoo DUrf.. bStteewwaarrtt,, Ii aamm unaware of what your contention is. Are you suggesting that I asked Dr. Stewart to provide to me information outside your presence? Please let me have this information from you by return facsimile before our hearing this afternoon. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js Attachment cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Dr. Terrence J. Roberts Ms. Ann S. Marshall Terrence J. Roberts, PhD. P.O. Box 96 Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 August 17, 2001 Air. John Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, .AR 72201 Air. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Fendley and Air. Walker: It was brought to my attention this morning by Mr. John Walker that a motion to cite Mr. John Walker in contempt of court was made by Air. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. Air. Walker provided me with the motion. I am addressing the facts in paragraph 2 of the motion. I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Air. Walker and two of his associates were invited into her offices. Air. Walker did not barge into Ms. Elstons office. Mr. Walker was cognizant of the courts orders
and, therefore, he addressed his statements to me in order to clarify issues being discussed between Ms. Elston and myself. It is my assertion and belief that Air. Walker was not in violation of the courts order and that he was simply being helpful to me in making sure that I had adequate information upon which to base my recommendations to the District. Please contact me if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Terrence J. Roberts, PhD.5 John W. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rook, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374.3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 17, 2001 or COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKr, PA. DONNA J McHenry 8210 Hendebsom Road n HOOR- AEKANaAS 72210 Phone: (BOI) 372-3425 Fax (501) S72-3428 Email: mcheniydSswbelLnet Mr. John C. Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock. AR 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: I have spoken with Dr. Tenence Roberts, after providing him a copy of your motion and he has provided the attached response for your information. I am bringing this response to the attention of the Court. You also made other allegations regarding Mr. James Washington and Dr. Don Stewart Would you kindly favor me with their affidavits as well as the affidavit of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, if you intend to have these matters addressed with the Court today. 1 remind you that we spoke with Mr. James Washington in your presence and that he has already testified He testimony contradicts your contentions. With respect to Dr. Stewart, I am unaware of what your contention is. Are you suggesting that I asked Dr. Stewart to provide me information outside your presence? to Please let me have this information from you by return facsimile before our hearing this afternoon. Sipwrcly, John W. Walker JWW
js Attachment cc
Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Dr, Terrence J. Roberts Ms. Ann S. Marshall Terrence J. Roberts, PhD. P.O Box 96 Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 August 17, 2001 Mr. John Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Fendley and Mr. Walker: It was brought to my attention this morning by Mr John Walker that a motion to cite Mr. John Walker in contempt of court was made by Mr. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. Mr Walker provided me with the motion. 1 am addressing the facts in paragraph 2 of the motion. I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Mr. Walker and two of his associates were invited into her offices. Mr. Walker did not barge into Ms Elstons office. Mr Walker was cognizant of the courts orders
and, therefore, he addressed his statements to me in order to clarify issues being discussed between Ms. Elston and myself It is my assertion and belief that Mr. Walker was not in violation of the courts order and that he was simply being helpful to me in making sure that 1 had adequate information upon which to base my recommendations to the District. Please contact me if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Terrence J. Roberts, PhD.John w. Walker, p,a. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Ltitle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED 'AUG 212001 CR3SQF JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS August 20, 2001 ______OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY RA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendeeson Road Little Rock, Aekansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheuryd^wbellnet Dr. Donald Stewart Chief Financial OfiBcer Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Stewart: You have not responded fully to my letter regarding Administrative Directive KDB. Your response did not address the author of the directive nor the itemization (number) of documents from the Friday Firm invoices. It appears that Directive KDB, effective July 16, 2001, was written to apply to the Joshua Intervenors. Surely, no one else, except for maybe the local newspaper, has asked for more than 25 copies in a month. Secondly, this came after the Judges hearing in chambers on June 29, 2001 where she approved our use of FOI requests. Directive KDB appears to be retaliatory toward us because of the Judges orders. In that a copy of this letter is being sent to Mr. Clay Fendley and Ms. Ann Marshall, I putting you and Dr. James on notice that I intend to bring this matter before the court unless you rescind it forthwith and provide us the information without charge. am incerely, '<John W. Walker JWW:js cc
Mr. Clay Fendley Ms. Ann Marshall^001 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS AUQ 2 2 John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 August 20, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydi^wbelLnet Mr. John C. Fendley Friday, Eldredge <5^ Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: Please provide to me the afBdavit statements of Mr. James Washington, Dr. Don Stewart and Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston which form the bases for your Motion for Contempt Sincerely, (zjJoohhnn W. Walker JWW:js JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS HVEP- John W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 August 20,2001 AUS 2 1 2201 DBS'! Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net BESSKSiKHotA Dear Clay: In that you have taken ten days, and in that the information that I am seeking is readily accessible, you may have 20 additional days to respond to the FOIA involving the principals. I will agree to a protective order regarding personal student information provided by FREPA. In that the LRSDs motion to be declared unitary is not a trial on the merits of the case, and in that no discovery schedule has been approved by the court, I can not agree to the procedure you suggest. There are several reasons for this. The most compelling reason, however, is that the mformation I request has routinely been provided upon request in the past
and that we have not requested to use the FOIA in the past for these purposes. We now use the FOIA to make sure that the district is clear about what we need and to give the district officials time to obtain it without interference with their jobs. You lawyers interrupted the process when you decided you wanted to scrutinize each request that came from us. To us, that means that you not only want to review the matter but to structure the response as well. Clay, the documents we requested to review need not be exaimned first by you if they are public documents. We dont even need to copy many of them. We are entitled to see them even if the purpose is unrelated to your motion. You make things more difficult and then try to blame us for having done so. With respect to the federal rules, we will request that you make available witnesses without depositions. If we seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form or either by interrogatories. fry truly yours, ihn W. Walker JWW
lp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall001^744107 WHLKtk LAW FIRM 310 P02 AUG 20 01 14:36 e4 Indivi/iual^pjfToach to a W'orU of "Knowledge^' August 20, 2001 John W, Walker. P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker
Enclosed is a copy of the Little Rock School District's Administrative Directive KDB, which was proposed by the Cabinet as a result of changes in the law. The new directive became effective on July 16,2001. Administrative Directives do not require School Board approval. Except for requests made by you or on your behalf, there have been no FOIA requests to the District since the effective date of this Directive
therefore, no one else has been charged for copies. It is the intent of the District that the new directive will be followed completely in the future. It is our understanding that you requested copies of all Friday, Eldredge & Clark invoices for the past three years and that is what was copied for you. Please let me know rf 1 can provide additional information. Sincerely, . Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Chief Financial Officer Enclosure 810 W Markham little Kock, Arkansas 72201 wwwJredJcl24utus 501-324-2000 fine: 501-324-2032OW1OY441BY WHLKtK LAW FIRM 310 P03 AUG 20 *01 14:36 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT p- ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB I Effective: July 16, 2001 PROCESS FOR MAKING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FOIA Purpose The specific purposes to be served by these procedures are: To ensure that the District complies with the requirements of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as amended in 2001
To ensure reasonable and timely citizen access of District records
To ensure that the privacy rights of students and staff are protected in the release of District records
and To ensure an orderly and efficient process for obtaining information from the District. Definitions Records
Records shall be interpreted as writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, or data compilations in any form, required by law to be kept, which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions. All records maintained by LRSD employees in the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records. Before records are provided for inspection or copying, the custodian of the records shall determine if the records contain information that is not releasable under the FOIA, Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), or other applicable statutes. If the records contain information that is not releasable, it shall be the responsibility of the custodian to delete that infonnation and make the remainder of the records available. Electronic Information: For the purpose of this administrative directive, electronic information shall be interpreted to include all data processing time required to manipulate computer or other technologically stored or generated data into a format that is transferable to the requester. Custodian of the Records
For the purpose of these regulations and the convenience of the public, the custodian of the records will be the person having administrative control of that record.I Sfe)lJY4418-,' WHLKtK LAW FIRM 310 P04 RUG 20 01 14:36 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
KDB Effective
July 16, 2001 continued . Process far Obtaining Information through the FOIA Any citizen of the State of Arkansas may request records open under the Arkansas FOIA from the LRSD's custodian of the record. The request may be made in person or by telephone, mail, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic means provided by the custodian. To facilitate the retrieval of the records, the request shall be sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the records with reasonable effort. The requester should indicate whether or not he/she wants to inspect the records or receive copies of the records. The LRSD will copy the requested records when the requester wants copies and it is reasonable for the District to make the copies. In an effort to be responsive to the public and avoid accounting procedures that are not cost effective, the District will not charge for the first 25 pages that it copies for a citizen unless the total number of copies exceeds 25 in one calendar month. If it requires more than 25 pages of copies to meet a single request for information, or if a citizen makes additional requests for information within the month which would require more than 25 total pages of copies, the District will charge the requester 25 cents for each copy including the first 25 pages. Additionally, the District will charge the requester the actual costs of mailing or transmitting the record by facsimile or other electronic means. Special requests for electronic information will be handled as follows: 1. The District may agree to summarize, compile, or tailor electronic data in a particular manner or medium and may agree to provide the data in an electronic format to which it is not readily convertible. 2. Where the cost and time involved in complying with the requests are 3. 4. 5. relatively minimal, the District may agree to provide the data as requested. If the custodian agrees to a request, the District will charge the requester the actual, verifiable costs of personnel time exceeding two (2) hours associated with the tasks, in addition to copying costs. The charge for personnel time shall not exceed the salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the discretion of the District, has the necessary skill and training to respond to the request. The District will provide an itemized breakdown of charges for expenses incurred.bk)lJ744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 310 P05 AUG 20 01 14:37 LITTLE ROCK xSCHOOL DISTRICT continued ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KOB Effective: July 16, 2001 if the estimated fee exceeds twenty-five dollars ($25.00), the District will require the requester to pay the fee in advance. Requests must be made during normal business hours. Any requests received by facsimile or other means after regular business hours will be considered received at the start of the next business day If the information is in active use or storage at the time of the request, reasonable time will be established for the custodian to comply. The custodian will set a time, date, and place within three days at which time the records will be made available. To the extent practicable the custodian will do this in consultation with the person requesting the record for the convenience of both parties. If the person requesting the information does not come at the appointed time, the records may be returned to active use or storage. In the event that the requester is seeking information regarding a third party, the custodian ot the records will within 24 hours make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person aboirt whom the information is being sought. If personal contact cannot be made within the 24 hours, an overnight letter shall be sent to the last known address of the subject of the request. The District may also seek an Attorney Generals opinion about the release of the records. If an Attorney Generals opinion is sought, the records will not be released before the Attorney General has issued his/her opinion.ouiji r4iia i WHLKtK LHW (- IWl 310 P01 AUG 20 01 14:36 ^HN W. WAL1<ER, P.A. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadwt^ Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 TAX TRANSMISSION COVER SWEET Date: [2(30 f To: Tax: Rl: Sender: YOV SHOULD RDCSIVE [ r-T -----------------------(Indodm^ coveT shett)] PAGB(S), INCLUDING THIS COVFn SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL "<(501) 374-3758>" The mformaiion contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information mtended only for die use of tlie individual or entity named above. If the reader of 7r "OC Che intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the mwi^dreap lent, you yeher^ notified chat any dissemination. stribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this coixununication in error, please the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. t^hone. and return the original message to us at the above addr^ viaJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, PA. Attohney Ai Law 1723 Bboadway Lttile Rock Askanbas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 OF COUNSEL aOBEKTMcHENEy,PjL DONNaJ. MeHENEY 8210 HsHDOaw Eq*d LrnL Kock, Akiunbas 72210 PHONt (BOI) S72-8426 PaX (501) S72-3428 Eu&il: mehfinrydiSswbell.ner August 20,2001 - r Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Fendley
I intend to request a copy of Dr. Lesleys vitae and am informing you of same. If you have it, would you be kind enough to forward it to me. In that I dont imagine that you do, and it should not be a controversial matter at all, I am forwarding this request to her as well. Sincerely, in W. Walker JWWilp cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Ms. Ann Marshall 02:TT X0. cc 3n 0/20d SVC waij non aaxiwn z.8TtfiT0s i John W. Walker, ra. Attoeney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Litilb Bock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (601) 374-4187 JOHNW.-WALKER SHAWN CHILDS August 22,2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 Hzhdekson Boas LiTThE Bool absaksas 72210 PHOHfc: (BOI) S72-S426 Fax (601) S72-3428 RMAn.' mchen^i^swbelljiet Dr. Bonnie Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Dr. Lesley: Will you please provide me a copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation. incerely, Ji W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Ms. ?^nn Marshall 0c:tT t0. 2c 900 0/0d waij (w aa>n0n j.8trfizt0=Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 August 20, 2001 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear John
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2001, to which you attached certain Little Rock School District standardized test results. The data you included were for the SAT-9 taken by 7'* graders in September 2000 and for the ACTAAP benchmark exams for 8* graders, administered in April 2000. We are in the process of gathering various test data from the districts. However, due to the ongoing hearings on the LRSDs bid for unitary status and Judge Wrights associated directives, at this time I dont anticipate that ODM will issue a report on LRSD achievement indicators. ! very much appreciate your keeping us informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall I 5013744187 UfiLKER LAW FIRM 301 P02/03 AUG 20 01 11:32 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway DrrLB Rock, Arkansas 72206 'Pelephone (501) FAX (501) 374.4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS August 20, 200 J OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, FA DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 HendiSkson Road Lmu Hock, ABKANS.s8 72210 Phone. (501) 872-3425 Fax (501) 372-8428 Email: rochdnryj^wkell.net Dr. Donald Stewart Chief Financial Officer Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Stewart: 1 am in receipt of your letter dated August 17, 2001 Would you please provide a copy of Administrative Directive KDB, who proposed the directive, when it was adopted by the Board and when it became applicable. Also inform me of anyone else who has been made to pay 25 cents a copy for multiple copies of information requested under FOIA. Please also provide to me a more thorough itemization of what you propose to charge me for copies. The 1488 copies is more than we requested when we reviewed the Friday Firm bills. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 301 P03/03 AUG 20 01 11:32 ItieUviJual^Approach tc a World i^Kjtoivlt^^' August 17,2001 Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: At your request, copies of all invoices rendered by Friday, Eldredge & Clark for services to the Little Rock School District from January, 1998 to present are available. In accordance with die LRSD Administrative Directive KDB- Process for Making Requests for Infonnation Ender the FOIA, the charge for copying is as follows: 1,488 copies @ $ .25 each - $ 372.00 Total Due Pursuant to Administrative Directive KDB, payment is due in advance of receiving the requested copies. Upon receipt of the amount due, the copies may be picked up at the office of the Superintendent Sincerely, Donald M. Stewart Chief Financial Officer C: Clay Fendley, Friday, Eldredge & Clark SlOWMadchatn Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.atus 501-324-2000 few: 501-324-2032 1 John W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Fax: 324-2146 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: incEenryd@swbeU.iiet August 20, 2001 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 OfflCfOf 2 J 2001 Dear Dr. James
This letter requests a copy of your written policy regarding minimum class sizes for elementary grades. It also requests for you to explain how double funding now works at the 90% or more black schools. Finally, this is to request that you explain whether the teacher/pupil ratios are expected to be the same in each school and if so what that ratio is. I am sending copies of this request to Mr. Fendley and Ms. Ann Marshall Upon your determining that you may communicate with me directly, please let me have a response forthwith. Si ely, JWW.-lp cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Ms. Ann Marshall 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 348 P02/02 AUG 22 01 14:17 John W. Walker, P.a. Attorney at Law Liwle Ro(x Abkanaas 72206 Telephone (601) S74-S768 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 324-2146 August 22, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENHI Pa DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HBaiaaoN Lmu Rocs. Auunsas 72210 PHONE
(601) 372-3425 Fax (601) 372-3428 Euaol mchem7<l^vbUjiet Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. James: I understand that the school year is scheduled to begin on tomorrow. I met with Dr. Terrence Roberts briefly on last Wednesday. August 15, 2001 and on Thursday morning to get some idea on how the District plans to make use of his recommendations and nthAr work. I am not certain that he was aware of what use the District is to make of his services for this school year. I have not spoken with Dr. Steve Ross regarding whether his offices would be involved in implementation of Success for All programs and other initiatives that he may also have recommended. I would like to be informed about the Districts plans for their use as soon as possible. Sincerely, >hn W. Walker JWW:js cc
Mr .Clay Fendley 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 351 P02 RUG 23 01 09:20 J. Individual .Approach to a W'orld of^jtowled^ August 22, 2001 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker Attached, as per requested, is a copy of my resume. Yours truly. B3oonnnniiee A. Lesley, EEd.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc
Chris Heller . . Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Maikham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 * www.li3d.kl2.ar.us SOl-324-2000 T..&X: 501-324-2032 t 5013744187 UfiLKER LRU FIRM 351 P03 RUG 23 01 09:20 Bonnie Alexander Lesley Home Address
232 Trelon Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-3920 Office Address
3001 S. Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Home Telephone
501/868-4289 Office Telephone: 501/324-2131 Home E-mail
balesley@.BOl.com Office E-mail: balesle@irc.lrsd.kl2.ai.us Educational Background Ed. D., Aug. 1989 Baylor University, Waco, Texas 54 Graduate Hours University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas M.A. in English, Aug. 1968 West Texas A&M University, Canyon, Texas B.A. in English, June 1962 With Honors University of North Texas, Denton, Texas High School Diploma, Valedictorian, May 1959 Hedley High School, Hedley, Texas Work Experience June 1998^Present Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School Distric Little Rock, Arkansas Dec. 1995March 1998 Associate Superintendent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Kansas City, Kansas June 1993Dec. 1995 Associate State Superintendent for Curriculum/Standards Delaware Department of Public Instruction Dover, Delaware Oct. 1991June 1993 Associate Superintendent for Cuiriculum/lnslruction Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas June 1986Oct. 1991 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Waco Independent School District Waco, Texas 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 351 P04 AUG 23 01 09:20 I Aug. 1981June 1986 Director of Secondary Education Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Aug. 1979Aug. 1981 Supervisor of Secondary Language Arts Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fall 1965Spring 1979 Teacher of English and Creative Writing Eastwood High School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fall 1964Spring 1965 Reading and Elementary Spanish Teacher Scotsdale Elementary School Ysleta Independent School District EI Paso, Texas Fall 1962Spring 1964 English, Mathematics, Reading, Spanish Teacher Silverton Independent School District Silverton, TexasFriday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H FRIDAY i I92M944) WILl I.A.M H SLTTO.N. P A HSRON M EISE.MAN. JR . p a .OF D BELL. P A JA.MES A BUTTRY. P a FREDERICK S URSERY. P A OSCAR O.AVIS. JR P A JAMES C CLARK. JR . P A THOMAS P LEGGETT. P a lOHS OEWEV WATSON. P a PALL a BENHA.M III. P a LARRY w BURKS. P A A WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR . P A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P A f PHILLIP MALCOM. P A /AMES M SIMPSO-N. P A James m s.a.yto.n. p a } SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111. P .A DONALD H BACON. P A WiLLiA.M THOMAS Ba.KTER. P .a 9.*RRV E COPLIN. P A nil HARD 0 Taylor, p a JOSEPH a HURST. JR . p a. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P A CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A ROBERT S SHAFER. P A WILLIAM M GRIFFIN III. P A MICHAEL S MOORE. P A DIANE S MACKEY. P A Walter m ebel hi. p a. KEVIN A. CRASS. P A WILLIAM A Waddell, jr . p.a. SCOTT J. Lancaster, p a M GAYLE CORLEY. P A. ROBERT B BEACH. JR.. P.A. J LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C BAKER. JR . P A HARRY A. LICHT. P A SCOTT H TUCKER. P A GUY ALTON Wade, p.a PRICE C GARDNER. P -A TONIa P JONES. P A DAVID 0 WILSON. P A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501.376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-895-2011 FAX 501-895-2147 JEPFREY'H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P A JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONaNN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.a. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 8. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH C. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH TAMARA 0. MARTIN RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M COTTON orCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782.2898 FAX 870-782-2918 VIA FAX No. 374-4187 August 23, 2001 received CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL S01-370-1SO6 FAX 501.244-5344 htlUrQltc.n*! Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 AUG 2 4 ZOO! ufHGEQF DESEMOT.mO8IS
Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear John: The Joshua Intervenors always have a place on the Board agenda. I do not believe would violate any court orders by making a presentation to the Board concerning issues of you legitimate concern to the Joshua Intervenors during the time set aside on the agenda for that purpose. I do believe, however, that your actions this morning at the Instructional Resource Center violation of Judge Wrights July 29 and August 17, 2001 Orders. We are filing an appropriate motion today. were in Yours ve
CJH/bk Christopller Heller cc: Ms. Ann Marshall aJohn W. walker, P.A, Attobnet Ar Law 1723 Broadway Litoe Bock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (BOI) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS August 23,2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKY, PjL DONNA J. McHENKY 8210 HMOtSEOK ROaO LtiTu Rock, Aixamsas 72210 PhONI: (SOI) 372.3425 F (501) 372.3428 BmaE.: mchenr7dSswbeU.net Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Heller: Do you perceive the Judges Order as requiring me to inlbim you that I intend to have a discussion with the board members today during the board meeting. Please let me hear from you by return fax. itjccrely, in W. Walker MM., JWW:Ip 62: PT cc: Ms. Ann Marshall T0, 2 any 20/c0d 89 waid mtn a3>nwri z.8TppiT0siEE!ED John W. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Al=3 2 4 2001 GiflGE OF JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 Hendebson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.uet Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: As you know, I have been seeking information from the Little Rock School District. You also know it is my belief that the District does not provide full or accurate information, at least to us, upon request. We have some substantial evidence of that already. Yesterday, I requested a copy of Dr. Bormie Lesleys resume or vitae. You received a copy of my request. She provided a resume, a copy of which is attached. The resume is three pages. The resume is an example of an attitude: give them something, anything will do
but dont give them all of what we have. Dr. Lesley surely provided to the Little Rock School District a far more extensive resume that she provided in response to our request. Perhaps, you have seen it. Surely, the Board of Directors had more than what she provided to us. I am writing this letter to enlist your offices assistance in helping to ensure that the Little Rock School District is fully responsive to citizens requests for information. If the District will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks to the Districts general inclination. Sincerely, ^ohn W. Walk / JWW:js Attachment cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mr. Chris Heller I Individual Approach to a World of knowledge August 22, 2001 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: Attached, as per requested, is a copy of my resume. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc
Chris Heller Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markiiain Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.irsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 501-324-2032 Resume Bonnie Alexander Lesley Home Address: 232 Trelon Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-3920 Ofhee Address: 3001 S. Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Home Telephone: 501/868-4289 Office Telephone: 501/324-2131 Home E-mail: baleslev@.aol.com Office E-mail: balesle@,irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Educational Background Ed. D., Aug. 1989 Baylor University, Waco, Texas 54 Graduate Hours University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas M.A. in English, Aug. 1968 West Texas A&M University, Canyon, Texas B.A. in English, June 1962 With Honors University of North Texas, Denton, Texas High School Diploma, Valedictorian, May 1959 Hedley High School, Hedley, Texas Work Experience June 1998^Present Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School Distric Little Rode, Arkansas Dec. 1995March 1998 Associate Superintendent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Kansas City, Kansas June 1993^Dec. 1995 Associate State Superintendent for Curriculum/Standards Delaware Department of Public Instruction Dover, Delaware Oct. 1991June 1993 Associate Superintendent for Curriculum/Instruction Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas June 1986Oct. 1991 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Waco Independent School District Waco, TexasAug. 1981June 1986 Director of Secondary Education Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Aug. 1979Aug. 1981 Supervisor of Secondary Language Arts Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fall 1965Spring 1979 Teacher of English and Creative Writing Eastwood High School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fan 1964Spring 1965 Reading and Elementary Spanish Teacher Scotsdale Elementary School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Fall 1962Spring 1964 English, Mathematics, Reading, Spanish Teacher Silverton Independent School District Silverton, TexasJohn W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 24, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendebson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbeU.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSDs Motion for Contempt Dear Ms. Marshall: About five minutes before the school board meeting, Mr. James Douglas, of my office, brought me a copy of Mr. Clay Pendleys motion to cite me for contempt. I take this motion seriously and I will prepare a response to it within the required rule time. I am now in route to Forrest City, Arkansas for a 2:00 p.m. hearing. as I dictate this letter. I am sending it to you that you may inform the Court that 1 intend to controvert the pleading. so Let me say that the facts are distorted. The facts regarding my visit to the IRC are as follows: 1)1 never saw or spoke with Dr. Bonnie Lesley during that visit. 2) I informed Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesleys secretary, that I had not received the copy of the requested vitae of Dr. Lesley. She got me another copy and I asked if this was all of it, commenting that surely there was more. I also asked regarding the Board meeting scheduled for that night whether there was any information which backed up the proposed items under the instructional division which were on the 6:00 p.m. agenda. 3) I spoke to several staff members with a greeting- nothing more. I spoke to a lady that I thought was a Ms. Dillingham who was entering the building and then, believing I was mistaken, asked her whether she was Ms. Dillingham, nothing else was said. 4) In the building, I went into an office of a former client whose child was involved in the grade changing episode at Hall High School. No one was in the room. As I touched nothing, saw no one and within seconds after learning that no one was in the room, I left the room. As I was leaving the room, Ms. Anita Gilliam entered the room and asked if she could help me. I told her no and that if I needed her help I would ask her. Ms. Springer indicates that she did speak to Ms. Gilliam and that while doing so Dr. Lesley came out of her and spoke to Ms. Springer. Ms. Springer did not ask Dr. Lesley anythin! Dr. Lesley volunteered that she did not have any information to supplement the agenda. Ms Springer indicated to Dr. Lesley to that she did not ^g- understand what Dr. Lesley was saying in her volunteered statement and she asked her to clarify it. Dr. Lesley simply indicated that she may have something and would check into the matter. Nothing else happened. 5. Neither Ms. Springer nor I sought to speak with Dr. Lesley or any other District agent regarding any matter before the court. I went to the Board and made a statement wherein I implored the Board to fairly address and resolve the issues that separate us. Before doing that, I wrote Mr. Chris Heller a letter asking, notwithstanding that we have a place on the agenda, if he any problem with my talking to the Board. I sat next to Chris during the Board meeting. The motion is much to do about nothing because I did nothing to offend the letter or spirit of the courts order. dncerely, Dictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris HellerMtuBVEj AUG 2 7 2001 Responses to John Walkers Objections to LRSDs Unitary Status p. 41st paragraph on Incentive Schools Mr. Walker states that we believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the districts past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. That belief is simply not grounded in fact. When the District submitted its proposal to the National Science Foundation in 1998 to fund the implementation of new K-12 mathematics and science curriculum, it made a commitment to implement one researchbased curriculum in those areas for all schools, and by implication, it eliminated the proliferation of individual school programs and individual school supplementary programs which caused an inequitable opportunity to learn and which caused many problems for students who move from school to school. Mobile students were having problems not only in being exposed to the total curriculum, but also in understanding the many approaches that individual schools took to teaching the content and skills. The District now has one mathematics and one science curriculum that all schools must use. We have done everything we could to eliminate supplemental programs that conflict with the District curricula, rather than just reinforce it. (See p. 119 in the Interim Compliance Report and p. 115 of the Compliance Report.) The same can be said for the literacy curriculum. When the District proposed its PreK-3 Literacy Plan in spring 1999, it included in its analysis a list of all the various literacy programs used in schools throughout the Districtmany which conflicted radically with others in use in the same school. On p. 15 of the plan, we stated: . . . there is in several schools a proliferation of disparate "programs, " and both reviews of those lists and interviews with the principal and teachers of those schools reveal many times a lack of understanding of how the many programs fit together (lack of coherence) and/or what problems they are mtended to solve (lack of alignment). The plan then went on to analyze and delineate the various technology programs in use and as many as eight supplemental reading/language arts programs in use, in addition to the many programs taking the place of a central curriculum. Lists and definitions of many of those programs are on pp. 16-20. In the section on proposed new program components, we wrote the following (p. 33): Program Abandonment. In order for the District and each school to be successful in the implementation of these program components, many former programs and practices must be abaridoned. The mobility of our students requires us to be consistent in our curriculum and instruction. The importance of coherence requires us to have a common research and theory base for the program components. Also, limitations on teacher time and energy require us to abandon 1some old programs and practices to make room for the new. Finally, in order to fund these new program components, both District budgets and Title I budgets must be reallocated to fund the teacher development, new teaching materials, and interventions now required. Clearly, then, the abandonment of the proliferation of numerous programs was built into the new plan. We have monitored schools compliance with this requirement through classroom observations, through the review of all Title I purchases, and through discussions with principals and teachers so that they understand the importance of this mandate. The Division of School Services monitors, as well, through their supervision of the writing and implementation of School Improvement Plans. Mr. Walker further states in that same paragraph that Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Again, this statemenfis blatantly not true, as is evidenced by the most recent report of the results of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), presented to the Board of Education on June 28, 2001. Incentive schools performed very well both in 1999-2000 and in 2000-2001 on the DRA. The Incentive Schools are, in general, improving. With the exception of Mitchell and Rightsell at grade 1, a majority of the students are performing at or above the readiness level. Kindergarten LRSD Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 199S-200Q 72.2 64.3 90.6. 92.1 75.8 40.8 2000-2001: 30.7 58.6 92.3 80.5 76.2 66.1 Change 8.5 -5.7 1.7 -11.6 0.4 25.3 Mitchell scored higher than the District average of 80.7, and Rightsell was behind, even after their drop in performance in 2000-01, only 0.2. Stephens grew three times as much as the District as a whole. Grade 1 LRSD Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 53.6 57.6 25.0 35.7 76.3 23.5 2080-2001 63.8 58.9 25.0 41.7 65.2 51.0 10.2 1.3 0.0 6.0 -11.1 27.5 Rockefeller scored higher than the District average of 63.8. Stephens grew almost three times as much as the District as a whole. 2Grade 2 LRSD Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1.999-2000 67.5 81.2 48.6 94.7 71.4 31.3 75.4 83.6 50.0 70.5 84.2 61.4 Change 7.9 2.4 1.4 -24.2 12.8 30.1 Both Franklin and Rockefeller both scored higher than the District average of 75.4. Rockefeller grew more than the District, and Stephens grew more than four times as much as the District as a whole. The Grade 4 Benchmark scores are another measure of the progress of the Incentive Schools. J Grade 4 Literacy State BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced School LRSD Franklin MitcheU RightseU_______ Rockefeller Garland/Stephens 1998-99 32 16 13 41 54 15 1999-2000 42 31 13 41 60 13 10 15 0 0 6 -2 Rockefeller scored 18 points above the District average of 42 percent. Franklin grew 15 points to the Districts growth of 10 points. From other measures we anticipate a good improvement at Stephens in 2001 over the previous Garland scores. Grade 4 Mathematics State BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced School LRSD Franklin Mitchell RightseU_______ Rockefeller Garland/Stephens 1998-99 22 2 4 12 36 4 1999-2000 30 10 9 41 34 0 Change 8 8 5 29 -2 -4 Both Rightsell and Rockefeller scored above the District average of 30. Franklin improved the same number of points as the District, and Rightsells growth greatly exceeded that of the District. Again, improvement will likely occur at Stephens on the 2001 measures, given other data. The District also looked specifically at the results of the DRA in the seventeen schools where there are 75 percent or more of the students eligible for the fi-ee/reduced lunch program. Again, the results are very encouraging: There are seventeen (49 percent) elementary schools in the District where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for fi'ee/reduced lunch. Many of these schools improved i 3dramatically in spring 2001 (those that are bolded in the Change column.) and/or some are performing in the highest range of scores (80 percent or higher are bolded in the 2000-01 column). Kindergarten LRSD____________ Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)______ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) i MitcheU (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%) RightseU (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) t999>200ft 72.2 21.6 64.3 40.8 56.1 51.1 69.2 56.4 66.7 61.0 90.6 56.4 85.1 92.1 77.4 46.8 68.3 2000-2001 80.7 50.0 58.6 66.1 70.9 94.0 46.2 82.5 80,0 73.3 92,3 73.7 87.7 80.5 77.1 61.1 75.6 Change 8.5 28.4 -5.7 25.3 14.8 42.9 -23.0 26.1 13.3 12.3 1.7 17.3 2.6 -11.6 -0.3 14.3 7.3 ______ The District average for kindergarten was 80.7 percent in 2000-2001. The following high-poverty schools, therefore, performed at a higher level than the District average: Baseline, Cloverdale, Mitchell, and Geyer Springs. In addition, both Wilson and Rightsell had more than 80 percent of their students performing at the readiness level. Baseline was the second highest performing school in the District at the kindergarten level in 2000-01. Rightsell was in third place in 1999-2000. Grade 1 LRSD____________ Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)______ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) MitcheU (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%) Rightsell (82%) Meadowclrff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) _______516_ 5.9 57.6 23.5 26.8 29.6 84.2 28.4 _______82,9_ 50.8 25.0 _______24.7 _______46,8_ 35.7 70.0 22.0 62.5 2000-200J 63.8 26.5 589 51.0 51.2 70.8 61.5 33.9 53.8 60.5 25.0 66.6 38.6 41.7 66.6 66.6 72.7 iEhangc 10.2 20.6 1.3 27.5 24.4 41.2 -22.7 5.5 -29.1 9.7 0.0 41.9 -8.2 6.0 -3.4 44.6 10.2 _____ 4The District average for Grade 1 was 63.8 percent in 2000-2001. The following high- poverty schools, therefore, performed at a higher level than the District average: Baseline, Watson, Meadowcliff, Wakefield, and Fair Park. In addition, both Mabelvale and Woodruff had more than 60 percent of their students performing at the readiness level. Wilson ranked third in the District at grade 1 in 1999-2000. Grade 2 LRSD____________ Badgett (94%) Frankhn (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%). Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%) Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) t99-2000 67.5 11.8 81.2 31.3 38.6 47.1 78.3 57.9 60.4 43.4 48.6 54.4 72.5 94.7 57.9 40.0 62.9 2000-2001 75.4 42,9 83.6 61.4 52.1 60.5 86,5 45.1 61.4 63.0 50.0 51.2 66.0 70.5 75.0 54.4 67.7 7.9 31,1 2.4 30.1 13.5 13.4 8.2 -12.8 1.0 19.6 1.4 -3.2 -6.5 -24.2 17.1 14.4 4.8 The District average for Grade 2 was 75.4 percent in 2000-2001. The following high- poverty schools, therefore, performed at a higher level than the District average: Franklin and Woodruff. In addition. Rightsell had more than 70 percent of their students performing at the readiness level. Rightsell ranked first in the District at grade 2 in 1999-2000. The State Benchmark scores are also useful in reviewing the progress of the seventeen high-poverty schools: Grade 4 Literacy State BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced LRSD_________________ Badgett (94%)__________ Franklin (90%)_________ Stephens (90%) (Garland) Chicot (87%)___________ Baseline (86%)_________ Woodruff (86%)________ Cloverdale (85%)_______ Wilson (85%)__________ Mabelvale (85%)_______ Mitchell (84%)_________ Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%) Rightsell (82%) 1999-2000 32 12 16 15 11 22 6 13 19 10 13 11 27 41 2000-2001 42 27 31 13 11 12 35 17 26 22 14 30 30 41 ______Change___ 10 15 15 -2 0 -10 29 4 7 12 1 19 3 0 5Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) 17 15 20 33 12 21 16 -3 1 Rightsell scored just one point below the District average of 42. Badgett, Franklin^ Woodruff, Mabelvale, Watson, and Meadowcliff all grew at a higher rate than the District as a whole at 10 points. Woodruff had three times that amount of growth, and Watson almost doubled it. Grade 4 Mathematics State BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced Badgett (94%)_________ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) (Garland) Chicot (87%)__________ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%)__________ Mabelvale (85%)_______ Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)__________ Geyer Springs (83%) RightseU (82%)_________ Meadowcliff (81%)_____ Wakefield (80%)________ Fair Park (78%) 1999-2000 22 0 2 4 10 11 12 4 6 0 4 6 12 12 0 6 10 2000-2001 30 14 10 0 6 12 24 10 16 22 9 8 7 41 28 3 0 Change 8 14 8 -4 -4 1 12 3 10 22 5 2 -5 29 28 -3 -10 Again, Rightsell scored above the District average of 30, with Meadowcliff close behind at 28. Badgett, Franklin, Woodruff, Wilson, Mabelvale, Rightsell, and Meadowcliff all grew at a higher rate than the District at 8 points. Rightsell and Meadowcliff grew more than three times the District growth, and Mabelvale grew almost three times as much. Clearly, therefore, these early measures of performance in these seventeen schools indicate the potential of students in high poverty schools and the potential of the Little Rock School District in significantly narrowing, if not totally eliminating, the achievement gap. p. 5, paragraph Mr. Walker states that Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. We agree with that, but we know that it is impossible to eliminate the achievement gaps in two years after implementation of new programs, policies, and procedures, especially at the secondary level. Some of our programs, in fact, have seen only one full year of implementation at the end of 2000-01 since it was impossible to train every elementary teacher in one year (1999-2000) to implement three entirely new curriculaEnglish language arts, mathematics, and science, with accompanying new instructional strategies, new instructional materials, and 6new assessments. No district or school has ever been able to do that and to do so in a manner to close the achievement gap in one year. We are making progress, and the data show that. We have in good faith reported all available data, even when they do not show gains. What we intended to do was show a pattern of improvement, and we feel confident that the pattern is evident, especially at the elementary level. Mr. Walker further states that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. He mistakenly sees evaluation as an event or the publication of a formal paper. Part of what we are about is being data-driven in our decision making, using data on an ongoing basis to determine where we are and what our next steps should be. Our central office staff look at data continuously, whenever new information is available
our cabinet receives quarterly reports on all available data
our principals rarely have a meeting without reviewing data
our Campus Leadership Teams J have received training in how to collect, review, analyze, and use data for decisionmaking and planning
and our teachers are being trained in using data. All these actions are a form of program evaluation, and we do that continuously. The programs have been evaluated in our analysis presented in the Interim Compliance Report (pp. 51-69) and the Compliance Report (p. 148). Dr. Steve Ross has worked closely with PRE in putting into place a formal evaluation system. We have accreditation reports
evaluation reports on our grant-funded projects
audits of our processes for all kinds of programs
and reports to the Board of Education. These too are forms of program evaluation. These evaluations are done by professionally competent staff
they are reviewed and discussed by professionally competent staff
and they are used in decision-making by professionally competent staff on an ongoing basis. Mr. Walker is also reminded that these processes, sometimes called formative evaluation, are thoroughly outlined and described in the Interim Compliance Report of March 2000, pp. 51-69. We see the formal, or summative, evaluation of the elementary literary, the k- 12 mathematics and science programs, and the middle school implementation as long- range evaluation projects (three or more years), with, of course, frequent formative evaluations occurring on an ongoing basis. p. 7, 1st paragraph Mr. Walker errs when he states that the consultants have not been used to address specific needs of African American students. In the many conversations and meetings in which we have been engaged with Dr. Roberts, especially, and in the training and advice that he provides us on an ongoing basis, the needs of African American students were paramount. When he reviewed proposed policies and regulations with us, he advised us as to their likely impact on African American students. When he reviewed proposals for new programs, he advised on their likely impact on African American students. He spent a great deal of time advising us on the plan to increase enrollment of African American students in advanced classes. Dr. Roberts specific suggestions on this issue were, in fact, delineated on p. 33 of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report. We consulted him when we wrote grant proposals and when we began the 7implementation of those projects. He advised us in the restructuring of the parent program, especially in how it might impact African American parents. And he was especially concerned about the climate in our schools as it affects African American students when he proposed to us the Learning to Cope with Differences training program. (See pp. 163-165 in the March 2001 Compliance Report.) To suggest that Dr. Roberts was not consulted about the needs of African American students is not only to insult the District staff but to insult, as well. Dr. Roberts. Mr. Walker further states that Despite its use of Roberts and Ross and submits (sic) that the District has not devised any remedies to any problems concerning desegregation racial discrimination which adversely affects African American students. This or statement is also outrageous, given all the enormous efforts in the past, as well as in the last three years, to determine how to ensure equity and to move forward in implementing the plans. Mr. Walker apparently has a standard that is beyond what any community or any school district or any school in America has met. The remedies are delineated in great detail in both the Interim and the final Compliance Reports
they were implemented in good faith, using the best advice and resources that we had available
and they are showing a pattern of positive results. p. 15, paragraph Mr. Walker beats his drum again about the alleged misdeeds at Hall High with respect to altering grade weights of white students. He ignores the considerable efforts of the District s administration and Board of Education in the last two years to ensure that there are clear and written rules and regulations established so that if an individual does abuse the grading system, he or she can be held accountable. The Board of Education approved in September 1999 a new policy IKC and reviewed in October 1999 new administrative regulations on how to calculate the grade-point average and class rank. (See pp. 18 and 20 in the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report and p. 30 in the March 2001 Compliance Report.) These rules provide great detail on which grades are to be used in calculating the grade-point average, which grades are not to be counted, how grade weights are to be determined, the grading scale, and other details about determining honor graduates. Every student received a copy of these rules in the 2001 -02 High School Student/Parent Handbook on Graduation Requirements and Course Selection (pp. 14-17). Every counselor, registrar, and principal received a copy of the High School Curriculum Catalog for 2001-02, and copies of those rules appeared on pp. 27-31. Numerous meetings have been conducted with counselors, registrars, and high school principals about these rules and the Districts expectations that they be observed. p. 1, Section 2.3 Mr. Walker states that the schools in the southwest are becoming one race and grossly inferior while the schools in Pulaski Heights area and west Little Rock are becoming disproportionately white and superior. Mr. Walker may believe that disproportionately African American schools are necessarily inferior to disproportionately white schools, but the officials of the Little Rock School District do not. We have worked very hard while implementing this plan to ensure that the schools in southwest Little Rock receive 1 8the attention and resources that they deserve. Some examples follow. Southwest schools are the target population for the funds in the two 21^ Learning Community grant projects that have been funded in the last three yearsmore than $2 million. Thousands of hours of work and thousands of dollars were spent in the last year or so in planning the magnet school grant proposal that was recently awarded for the southwest Little Rock high schools and middle schools. (See p. 67 of the Interim Compliance Report and pp. 33-34, 64-65 and p. 144 of the Compliance Report.) These new funds, combined with funds from the District and from the millage increase, will add many new resources to the new magnets in the next three years, including many curriculum/instruction enhancements. Changes have occurred in the staffing of those schools. We placed three additional teachers at Chicot from the federal governments class-size reduction funds. Both Dodd and Watson applied for and received comprehensive school reform grants. Mabelvale Elementary School was designated as one of the three Extended Year Education (EYE) schools. We can look at the DRA results again as evidence that the southwest elementary schools are not grossly inferior, as Mr. Walker alleges. Kindergarten School________ LRSD_______ Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd_________ Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 1999^000 72.2 51.1 56.1 56.4 86.5 61.0 77.4 90.4 46.8 56.4 2000-2001 80.7 94.0 70.9 82.5 80.0 73.3 77.1 90.6 61.1 73.7 Change 8.5 42.9 14.8 26.1 -6.5 12.3 -0.3 0.2 14.3 17.3 Three of the nine schools performed above the District average at the kindergarten level. Another was behind only 0.7. All of the nine schools have a majority of the students performing at the readiness level, and eight of the nine have at least 70 percent at the readiness level. Six of the nine schools improved more than the District as a whole. Grade 1 School LRSD Baseline Chicot____ Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 1999-2U0U 2000-2001 53.6 29.6 26.8 28.4 58.3 50.8 70.0 67.7 22.0 24.7 63.8 70.8 51.2 33.9 73.5 60.5 66.6 69.6 66.6 66.6 Change 10.2 41.2 24.4 5.5 15.2 9.7 -3.4 1.9 44.6 - 41.9 9At the grade 1 level, seven of the nine schools performed above the District average. Eight of the nine schools have the majority of their students performing at or above the readiness level. Five of the nine schools improved more than the District as a whole, three of them more than 40 percentage points and another more than 20. Grade 2 School LRSD Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale MeadowcUff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 1999-2000 67.5 47.1 38.6 57.9 51.7 43.4 57.9 87.2 40.0 54.4 2090-1001 75.4 60.5 52.1 45.1 82.8 63.0 75.0 90.5 54.4 51.2 Change 7.9 13.4 13.5 -12.8 31.1 19.6 17.1 3.3 14.4 -3.2 At the grade 2 level, two of the nine schools performed above the District average. Nother school was less than one point behind. Eight of the nine schools had a majority of their students performing at or above the readiness level. Six of the nine schools improved more than the District as a whole, one by more than 30 points. We can also see improvement occurring generally in the SAT9 data. s Total Reading School LRSD_________ Baseline_______ Chicot Cloverdale Dodd_________ Mabelvale_____ Meadowchff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson Grade 5 1997-98 27 15 16 29 26 31 37 51 24 30 1998-99 .40 24 19 48 35 22 21 54 22 27 1990-00 37 18 16 21 30 21 27 40 18 22 42 27 21 23 42 23 47 51 19 33 +5 +12 +5 -6 +16 -8 +10 0 -5 +3 Three schools perform the same as or higher than the District average on the grade 5 Total Reading test. Five of the nine schools improved over the three years, three of them by more than 10 percentile points. The new Effective Literacy curriculum was not implemented fully in grade 5 until fall 2000, so the SAT9 scores caimot measure as yet the effectiveness of new curriculum, professional development, materials, and assessments. Total MathematicsGrade 5 School LRSD Baseline Chicot i997-9& 30 16 13 36 14 16 30 13 13 31 22 14 Change +1 +6 +1 10 I ICloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 35 22 22 29 45 19 28 56 25 21 12 59 20 28 29 28 18 25 30 14 17 38 33 17 34 49 13 21 +3 +11 -5 +5 +4 -6 -1 Four of the nine schools perform higher than the District average. Five of the nine improved more than the District as a whole. It is important to know in analyzing the mathematics data that the grade 5 new mathematics curriculum was not implemented until fall 1999. Therefore, the fall 2000 scores reflect only one year of implementation, and all teachers were not fully trained when school began in fall 1999. In addition, we know that the SAT9 is not well aligned with the states mathematics curriculum framework, which is the basis for the Districts new mathematics curriculum. The States Benchmark examinations at grade 4 also show improvement in many of the southwest schools. Grade 4 Literacy BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced School LRSD Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 1998^9 32 22 11 13 35 10 17 32 ' 15 11 1999-2000- 42 12 11 17 24 22 33 51 12 30 Change 10 -10 0 4 -11 12 16 19 -3 19 Again, the reader must remember that the spring 2000 scores do not reflect even one full year of implementation of the new grade 4 Effective Literacy curriculum. Some teachers were not trained at the beginmng of the school year, although all teachers had the training that occurred during preschool inservice in fall 1999. Otter Creek scored higher than the District average. Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Watson all improved more than the District as a whole. Grade 4 Mathematics BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced School LRSD Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield 1998-99 22 11 10 4 19 0 0 17 6 1999-2060 30 12 6 10 27 22 28 57 3 Change 8 1 -4 6 8 22 28 40 -3 11Cloverdale Dodd______ Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 35 22 22 29 45 19 28 56 25 21 12 59 20 28 29 28 18 25 30 14 17 I Four of the nine schools perform higher than the District 38 33 17 34 49 13 21 +3 +11 -5 +5 +4 -6 -7 average. Five of the nine J . - w* J. 1V C Vi Lllv xllllC T the District as a whole. It is important to know in analyzing the grade 5 new mathematics curriculum was not impkmited an J h Therefore the fall 2000 scores reflect only one year of implementation, and all teachers were not fully trained when school began in fall 1999. In addition know that the SAT9 is not well aliened thp statpc ____- v was not implemented is not well aligned with the states mathematics curriculum framework, which is the basis for the Districts new mathematics curriculum. } The States Benchmark examinations southwest schools. we at grade 4 also show improvement in many of the ^rade 4 Literacy BenchmarkPercent Proficient and Advanced T Baseline Chicot_____ Cloverdale Dodd Mabelvale Meadowcliff Otter Creek Wakefield Watson 32 22 11 13 35 10 17 32 15 11 42 12 11 17 24 22 33 51 12 30 .. Change 10 -10 0 4 -11 12 16 19 -3 19 I I I J I i I I Again the reader must remember that the spring 2000 scores do not reflect even one full year of implementation of the new grade 4 Effective Literacy curriculum Some teachers " beginning of the school year, although all teachers had the training at occurred during preschool inservice in fall 1999. Otter Creek scored higher than the^ P-ed improved more ^rade 4 Mathematics Benchmark-Percent Proficient and Adv^nrpH :-------------Z I ^200577--------- LKoU 77 ........... ' -------- Baseline Chicot_____ Cloverdale Dodd______ Mabelvale MeadowclifF Otter Creek Wakefield 22 11 10 4 19 0 0 17 6 I I 30 12 6 10 27 22 28 57 3 Change 8 1 6 8 22 28 40 -3 I I I 11 I I I I iI Watson I 6 8 2 The new grade 4 mathematics curriculum was not implemented until fall 1999, and not every teacher was fully trained when school began in fall 1999. The spring 2001 scores will be a better indicator of the programs effectiveness since every student will have experienced one full year of the new program. Otter Creek scored above the District average. Dodd, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, and Otter Creek all grew as much as or more than the District as a whole, with Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, and Otter Creek making dramatic gains. Grade 7 Reading School LRSD Cloverdale Mabelvale 1997-98 34 19 33 1998-99 38 22 25 40 21 33 39 22 32 Qiaitge +5 +3 -1 1 The new grades 6-8 ReadingAVriting Workshop was implemented in fall 1999, but not all the teachers were trained when school began in fall 1999. The fall 2000 scores, therefore, reflect less than one year of implementation of the new curriculum. Grade 7 Mathematics School LRSD Cloverdale Mabelvale 1997-98 33 24 31 1998-99 33 21 24 1999-00 39 21 26 2000411 32 17 25 Change -1 -7 -6 The new grade mathematics curriculum was implemented in fall 1999, so the fall 2000 scores reflect at most a year of implementation, although some teachers were not fully trained until after the school year began. Also, of all the subject areas tested, the SAT9 is probably least aligned with the states curriculum framework for mathematics. Grade 10 Reading School, LRSD Fair McClellan 1997-98 37 24 23 1998-99 36 14 25 1999-01) 33 21 21 37 25 20 _0_______ +1______ -3 The new English I Workshop was not implemented until fall 2000, so we could not expect that the high school performance would change in the fall 2000 scores. Grade 10 Mathematics School LRSD Fair McClellan 1997-98 43 35 31 1998-99 43 25 35 t999-nP 42 32 30 2000-01 46 37 33 _____Change +3 +2 +2 The gains in mathematics in fall 2000 reflect the new physics requirement for all freshmen, as well as the emphasis on standards in Algebra I. 12These data do not paint a portrait of grossly inferior schools. They paint a picture of improvement, of confidence, of anticipation of continued improvement. p. 18, Section 2.4 Mr, Walker states that the 504 program is replete with difficulties and programs which tend to impact African American students in a disparate way. The 504 program is, of course, very difficult to administer since the law provides for such broad definitions of disability and provides no funding. In spite of difficulties, however, the District has designated a 504 coordinator at the district level and provides training fi-equently for school-level staff We have a 504 Handbook, with articulated procedures that the schools are to observe. Mr. Walker presented no evidence that the administration of the program discriminates against African American students. If he knows of such discrimination, he has the burden of providing us with the specific complaint so that we may investigate. He further states in that same paragraph that African American male and female students are over identified. Ti And they are to some degree, but not when issues of poverty are taken into consideration. The alternative is to withhold services and support from students who badly need those services and support. If we did that, especially if we denied programs and services to eligible African American children simply because we did not want to over identify, then Mr. Walker would be alleging that we were discriminating against African American children, and we would be. Little Rock has a lower percentage of special education students identified than we normally find in urban school districts. Another point made in the Compliance Report is that many Non-Black special education students attend private schools (see p. 22 of the March 2001 Compliance Report). We are not aware that any African American special education students do so. p. 21. Section 2.6 Mr. Walker states that The administration of the advanced placement program gives rise to concerns that white students are being placed more into AP courses in earlier points in their lives and that in effect when one views the participation of academic activities one will find that those are largely participated in by white students. Mr. Walker has ignored the evidence that has been in effect for two years that the District does not place anyone in AP courses. It is outrageous even to suggest that we are at work to devise a strategy of enrolling white students earlier than African American students to give them an advantage. It just does not work that way. Rather, we have opened the enrollment into these courses to any student who wishes to take the courses, and this was done to ensure that no African American child who wanted to take these courses could be left out due to previous test scores or low gradesor due to anyones low expectations for African American students. The 2001-2002 High School Curriculum Catalog (pp. 53-55) provides guidelines to schools for the enrollment of students into Pre-AP and AP courses. The following language occurs in bold type on p 53: 13Schools are encouraged to allow open admission to all Pre-AP and AP courses and then to require attendance, good behavior, and acceptable performance (including effort, not just a minimum grade) to stay in the course, rather than to deny admission to any motivated student who wishes to try a more challenging curriculum. On that same page we have also quoted the sections from the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that relate to advanced courses to emphasize the importance of these actions to all staff involved in registered students into courses. Numerous efforts were employed to enroll more African American students into advanced courses. Those are listed_on p. 36 of the March 2001 Compliance Report. They are repeated here for emphasis: Improved recruitment of students by teachers and counselors for AP course enrollment
Added several new AP courses to curriculum in 1999-2000 and again in 2000-01, Authorized all AP courses to be available in all five high schools. Included enrollment in AP courses as one of the Quality Index indicators
Changed regulations so that students may now enroll in a Pre-AP or AP course if they earned at least a C in the previous course
Increased awareness of goals through the Revised Plan, the National Science Foundation Project, policies and regulations adoption, and professional development for teachers, counselors, and principals
Published in the curriculum catalogs the guidelines for ensuring access of students to the AP and Pre-AP courses, including those with disabilities, those identified as 504, ESL students, and those who are non-traditional students
Ensured equal access to the professional development courses for teachers by advancing the funds so that teacher could participate in the AP and Pre- AP conferences and Institute, thereby ensuring more equity for students at all schools
Conducted parent night meetings at secondary schools to provide information to parents about AP and Pre-AP programs, the importance of enrollment in courses, and the need for parental support in keeping students in courses
and Increased communication with parents through direct conferences and through the High School Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements. One of the most powerful strategies is that we included percents of African American students enrolled in advanced courses as one of the indicators in the Quality Index (see p. 62 in the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report for the list of middle school indicators and p. 64 for the list of high school indicators). All indicators are disaggregated by race in our reports. 14I Further, we went directly to the students in the 2001-02 High School Student/Parent Handbook on Graduation Requirements and Course Selections (p. 1) in an appeal for students (and or through their parents) to take the most challenging courses possible: . . Students who complete high school knowing something will earn more every year of your lives than students who drop out or who do not acquire marketable skills. Students who complete high school with an understanding of algebra and geometry tend to go to college and to complete college, regardless of race or wealth. Students who take the Recommended Curriculum (as opposed to the minimum requirements) perform better on the ACT (or SAT) than students who just take regular courses. Students who take Advanced Placement courses do better in college, even if they do not earn college credit on the exams, than students who did not take Advanced Placement courses. Students who read a lot and who read different kinds of books learn more and perform better on all kinds of tests than students who only read what is required from textbooks. Students who use technology effectively to learn and communicate are much more competitive in all areas of adult life than those who do not. Every student received a copy of this handbook. p. 22. Section 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.6.3 Mr. Walker states that There has been no assessment of the training programs for teachers and counselors for each of the last three years in order to assist them in identifying and encouraging African American students participation in honors, enriched, and advanced placement courses. He has absolutely no evidence of that. The staff began this training program with a comprehensive needs assessment to determine the training of each individual teacher
we made sure that they all received information and support to attend the College Board training
we have emphasized the new procedures and the importance of opening courses to all interested students
we have provided technical assistance in how to teach diverse classes
we have carefully tracked teacher participation
and we have conducted informal evaluations of each session conducted by District staff Mr. Walker can see that we have documented our work on pp. 36-38 of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report and on pp. 31-35 of the March 2001 Compliance Report. The College Board evaluates their sessions. The most impressive finding of our ongoing assessment of our work is that more and more teachers are being trained, and more and more African American students are enrolling in advanced courses at every level in every school, and more and more students are taking the Advanced Placement examinations, and more and more African American students are taking the ACT. Those are the results that we intended. p. 22, 2"^ paragraph Mr. Walker states that These sections demonstrate that programs are beginning to be implemented for the first time in 2001 and afterwards. These programs are 3 years late, with no evaluation criteria or component and are rife with problems, and no track record! 15We find it incredible that Mr. Walker would make such a statement. The Interim Compliance Report and the Compliance Report document a myriad of efforts to improve the enrollment of African American students in advanced courses, and those efforts began in fall 1998 and will continue, of course, into 2001 and into the future. But to say that nothing will be implemented until 2001 is blatantly untrue! In fact, we do not find anywhere where we said anything about 2001 implementation. The evaluation criteria were spelled out in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: improvements in the participation and success of African American students in advanced courses. The data that we presented, along with comprehensive analyses, are clear evidence that we are evaluating our work on an ongoing basis and that we are using the data to determine next steps. We demonstrated that we put a strong emphasis on professional development for teachers and that they participated. We demonstrated that our efforts have resulted in higher enrollments of African Americans in AP courses, in high school Pre-AP courses, and in middle school Pre-AP courses. We demonstrated that our efforts are resulting in more students taking the Advanced Placement examinations. We demonstrated that our efforts are resulting in more African American students taking the ACT. We demonstrated that African American scores on the ACT improved in some areas, even as their numbers dramatically increasedsomething rare. Thats our track record! It is surprising that Mr. Walker would condemn these dramatically important achievements. Mr. Walker stated that the board is establishing different graduation seals, using standards that are arbitrary and which particularly favor white students. He ftirther states that Joshua is completed opposed to a system where Black children are not taught on the same basis as white children-and then have that lack of teaching rubbed in their faces at graduation when they are denied honors. It is once again disappointing to see Mr. Walker have such low expectations of African American students. The research literature is full of evidence that high expectations and standards are essential for school improvement, for the improvement of the academic achievement of all students, including those who are African American, and, perhaps, especially for them. We know with certainty that when standards are high, more and more students will work harder to achieve those standards, and we do not believe for one instance that only white children have that motivation. The new policy on designating honors makes the Honors diploma seal meaningful and provides a powerful incentive for all students seeking that designation to take a minimum number of challenging courses, not just to shoot for a 3.5 grade-point average by taking the schools easiest courses. Students are required to do three things to earn the Honors seal. They must complete the Recommended Curriculum, not the minimum requirements. They must include in the Recommended Curriculum at least eight advanced courses (Pre-AP, AP, and/or University Studies courses). And they must 3.5 grade-point average. The old policy simply required a 3.5 on any courses the student earn a took. Given the hundreds of African American students taking Pre-AP courses, there is 16 1 Jcertainly NO evidence that the District is either providing them a different and inferior education
nor are we making it impossible for them to earn the Honors seal. We wrote that policy, along with others that require more of the Districts students in terms of courses they take, to make sure that it is adults who are making decisions about what the students need. It was just too easy under former policies for students to choose the easiest route to graduation, some taking the minimum number of courses, some never taking high school level mathematics or science courses, some never taking the college preparatory curriculum even though entirely able to do so, and some never taking advanced courses, again when they were entirely able to do so. We saw the requirement of eight advanced courses for the Honors seal as a powerful incentive to students to study hard, to earn something meaningful, to learn more on their way to a diploma. We know that when parents with means are shopping for a school they look for a school where virtually all the students are performing at the highest levels. Private schools tout those high percentages in their marketing strategies. For some reason, there are those, and Mr. Walker seems to be one of them, who believe that public schools are just fine with minimum numbers of students achieving at high levels. Little Rocks high schools will never be what we need for them to be until all students, or virtually all of them, are taking the kinds of courses and achieving at high levels in them, that we have specified for the Honors diploma. In fact, if Mr. Walker is really concerned that so few African American students qualify for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarship, then he should be the strongest advocate in the city for African American students taking the courses that prepare students well to score the required 19 on the ACT. Students who do not take the Recommended Curriculum do not even complete the required number of courses specified for the Arkansas Challenge Scholarships. It is highly disappointing that Mr. Walker would attempt to deter the District from improving its high school performance by insisting that African American students cannot be successful in meeting the standards established in the Boards policies. Mr. Walker writes that Joshua has general concerns about those programs and activities that are set forth on pages 32-35. Those pages list the training provided to AP and Pre- AP teachers
document new AP courses added to the curriculum in 2000-01 and both AP and Pre-AP courses to be added in 2001-02
document the development of the new middle school language arts Pre-AP curriculum
describe the new high school language arts courses in English I and U
and describe teacher and counselor training provided. Those kinds of activities are absolutely essential for the quality implementation of this section of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Mr. Walker makes another untrue statement when we says that he notes here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active ligitation. The following information is from the College Board, the organization responsible for the selection of National Merit Finalists: (9/ the 1.2 million entrants, some 50,000 with the highest PSAT/NMSQT^ Selection Index scores (verbal + math + writing skills scores) 17 will qualify for Merit Program recognition. In early September, about 16,000 students or approximately a third of the 50,000 high scorers, will be notified that they have qualified as Semifinalists. In February, Semifinalists who meet academic and all other requirements will be notified that they have advanced to Finalist standing. Beginning in March, NMSC will notify approximately 7,900 Finalists that they have been selected to receive Merit Scholarship^ awards. The information in italics is from the National Merit web site. So, of the 1.2 million entrants, only 7,900 are named Finalists for National Merit scholarships and corporate-sponsored scholarships. That amounts to 6/10 of 1 % of the entrants. Mr. Walker's statement on page 22 is: "We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation." THIS IS INCORRECT. Without reviewing 19 years of data (and we don't have all of the data for those years), as recently as four years ago Salonica Gray, an African American female senior at Central, was a National Merit Finalist. p. 23 Mr. Walker writes that The District presents a chart to show African American student enrollment is increasing in advanced placement courses, p. 38. Joshua observes that there is no real change. Again, Mr. Walker is totally misrepresenting the facts. Our job was to increase African American participation in Advanced Placement courses. The plan language follows: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses, and the gifted and talented program. When we designed and implemented those new programs, policies, and procedures to promote participation, when we opened up the enrollment in these courses, and when we made more of the courses available at every high school, more students of both African American and white races responded, and they enrolled. Nowhere in the plan did we ever make a commitment to suppressing white enrollment or achievement. We pledged to promote higher levels of participation among African American students, and we not only did that in the short term, but we also created a pipeline, beginning in grade 6, that will ensure steadily increasing numbersand PERCENTAGES-of African American students taking those advanced courses each year. The careful and comprehensive analysis of the data in all the tables on pages 38-43 of the March 2001 Compliance Report documents that not only did we promote participation
X ---------------------------J fcW |ZUA bAVZip/UUIWlX, we were VERY successful. Many of these African American students, no doubt, took on the challenge of an advanced course without ever having been in a Pre-AP course, and therefore they had to work hard to compete with students who had had a stronger preparation. The District has placed great emphasis on putting all able students into the advanced courses, beginning in grade 6, so that the African American students, especially, will no longer have the problem of inadequate preparation. 18Mr. Walker ought to be praising the District for this success, something that almost district in the United States has been able to achieve, and that is a 69 percent improvement in the numbers of African American students enrolled in Advanced Placement coursesin only three years! no Mr. Walker obviously did not understand the data in the tables. He wrote that Taking into account the fact that non Black students are only approximately one third of the school system, their numbers increased to a point that virtually every non-black student is in an AP class. The totals provided for each course are exactly what they saythe totals for each courses enrollment, by race. But the totals at the bottom of the table include what we call duplicated counts
that is, many students take more than one Advanced Placement course, so the same student may be counted one, two, three, perhaps even four times, depending on his/her schedule. The table does not state, therefore, that there were 797 individual African American students and 1495 other individual students taking AP courses in 2000-01. It states that there were, if we add up the African American enrollments in all AP courses, there were 797 instances when that occurred, and there were 1495 instances when other students were enrolled in those courses. Therefore, it is untrue that virtually every non-BIack student is in an AP course. An example of what is accurate follows: If we look at the AP course with the largest enrollment in 2000-01, then that is AP English IV, with a total of 359 students. Of that total, 142 are African American and 217 are other. AP English TV is also the course with the largest other enrollment. In this case, then, 14 percent of the African American seniors in 2000-01 (1003 students), and 39 percent of the other students were in the AP English IV course (557). Clearly, then, using the most extreme possibility, the maximum number of other students taking this AP course was 39 percent, hardly virtually every non-Black student in the District. Then another example. If we look at AP American History, there were 167 African American and 132 other students enrolled in that courses in 2000-01. In this case, 17 percent of all the African American students were enrolled, and 24 percent of all other students were enrolledagain a 5) long way from virtually every non-Black student. Mr. Walkers projections that follow this discussion are similarly based on untrue assumptions about the dAfa What is puzzling about Mr. Walkers objections to this section of the report is that we totally fails to acknowledge the success of the Districts efforts. Even though these efforts also improved other student participation in AP course-taking, the wonderful news is that 75 more African American students were enrolled in AP English III than there were three years ago! And 49 more African American students were enrolled in AP English IV than three years ago! And 42 more African American students were enrolled in AP Statistics than three years ago! And 20 more African American students were enrolled in AP Chemistry than three years ago! And 57 more African American students were enrolled in AP Environmental Science than three years ago! And 60 more African American students were enrolled in AP American History than three years ago! And 18 more African American students were enrolled in AP Psychology than three years ago. 19 i iIn all those classes we are seeing double-digit gains. Andit is going to continue to improve! In contrast, if we look at a comparison of 1997-98 and 1998-99, before the Districts interventions began, we see an increase in the bottom line of only 70 students. There were only three double-digit gains, two of them due to the addition of the course to the curriculum
AP English IH grew from 0 to 22 African American students in 1998-99, and AP Art History grew from 0 to 29. African American enrollment in AP Environmental Science grew from 2 to 16. Also, Mr. Walker continues to use the term place students in classes when it is clear from our documents that we do not place students. We allow students to choose their course levels, and we are celebrating mightily that increasing numbers of African American students are choosing the advanced levels. Mr. Walker stated that . . . every time an additional Black student is placed into an AP course, 1.5 white students are placed in to AP classes. The further ahead we get, the further behind we get comment often made by African American citizens is given dramatic proof by this single statistic. In fact, the opposite is true. The percentage of African American students enrolled in the AP courses remains at about 1/3 of the total for now. But since the total pool of students taking AP courses has increased dramatically, so did the numbers of African American students who participated. Mr. Walker conveniently ignored the evidence presented in the growing participation of African American students at the lower gradeswhich will, in the coming years, dramatically increase the percentage, as well as the numbers, of African American students participating in advanced courses. It is important also to remember that the District implemented the series of Pre-AP courses for the first time in fall 1999. This program is just now in fall 2001 producing students who have had Pre-AP courses in grades 9-10 to prepare them well for the AP courses that begin in grade 11. The tables and analyses are displayed on pp. 39-43 of the March 2001 Compliance Report. A couple of examples are presented here for emphasis. In fall 1997 there were only 93 African American students taking AP English IV. As a result of the Districts initiatives, including adding an AP English courses at the junior level, there were 217 African American students participating in Advanced Placement English at two grade levels. That is an increase of 124 students124 more African American students who see themselves as college material, 124 more African American students who have an opportunity to earn college credit, 124 more African American students who will do better in college English because they took this course, regardless of whether they pass the AP examination (College Board research), and 124 more African American students who took on the challenge of a more difficult coursefor a total of 217! But heres the potentialagain as a result of the careful implementation of a series of initiatives. In fall 1999 there were 520 African American students enrolled in Pre-AP English I and H. Now, these numbers are not duplicated counts, for no student is enrolled 20 at the same time in both Pre-AP English I and II. If all of those students enroll in AP English m-IV when they become juniors and seniors in fall 2001, then 396 additional African American student and 427 more than in fall 1997will have all those benefits. Even if half of them drop out of the college preparatory program (and we are doing everything we can to ensure that they do not) we will still double African American participation. And thats not all. In grades 6 and 7 in fall 1999 there were 761 African American students in Pre-AP English courses. Again, if they stay in the college preparatory pipeline through their junior and senior years and take AP English, we will see the 93 who were enrolled in fall 1997 grow to 761! That is an increase of 668! Why is Mr. Walker not celebrating this incredible potential? p. 24 Mr. Walker wrote that It is also interesting that when AP English in was introduced in were Black. 5 1998-99, 22 out of 35 students were Black. That soon changed. The next year, 70 of 186 -----That change occurred due to the fact that the course was made available to more than one school. When we offer a course, we cannot offer it just to one race. Therefore, as the course became more available, more white students, as well as more African American students took advantage of the opportunity. Mr. Walker made an issue of the declining enrollment of black students in Pre-AP Trigonometry on page 24 of his objections. We were concerned about that as well when we compiled the table. However, what we found out is that many African American students are choosing to take AP Statistics (with weighted grade points) as their fourth year of mathematics rather than another Pre-AP course. The African American enrollment in AP Statistics as grovwi from 8 in 1997-98 to 50 in 2000-01. So the movement out of Trigonometry may simply be a result of the f
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.