{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1753","title":"District Court, motion and denial for extension of time to file notice of appeal, Joshua intervenors' supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site, other motions and PCSSD's response to motions by Joshua intervenors.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School districts","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Middle schools","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, motion and denial for extension of time to file notice of appeal, Joshua intervenors' supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site, other motions and PCSSD's response to motions by Joshua intervenors."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1753"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["27 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal; District Court, order denying motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal; District Court, amended order denying motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to PCSSD's motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response and objection to Joshua intervenors' supplemental motion for extension of time to respond to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for recusal of district judge and for vacating of orders, rulings, and judgments; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of their motion for the vacating of orders and recusal; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for the vacating of orders and recusal; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for the vacating of orders and recusal; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    flE~1:IVED NOV - 4 2002 - OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV O 1 2002 ~/ ~~E~~~,I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Yesterday, Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to PCSSD's Motion for Approval of Middle School Site. The motion reports that PCSSD's counsel does not object to the requested extension. Joshua's request is GRANTED. They have up to and including November 19, 2002, in which to file a response to PCSSD's motion. IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of November, 2002. Wm.R. Wi UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WIT~ ~Uj.E 58 AND/OR79~~ ON / 11 lj:, \"h BY__,,,.,,..~-- 3699 t= u.f t~,.e:o EASTERN Dts~,21 COURT n:.,., T ,\u0026lt;\\Ri\u0026lt;AJ\\JSAs NOV O 8 2002 JAMES I~/  By v,  iLfoCO!~~-vAc1, ~--~ \\ CLERK rn THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAL\"\\JSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLArnTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 1.2 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, John W. Walker, P .A, and respectfully move the court for al?-_ extension of time for an additional thirty days in which to file Notice of Appeal to the final judgment entered herein on October 11 , 2002. For cause, Joshua respectfully states: 1. On October 25, 2002, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for hearing regarding the relevance of 28 U.S.C.  455 to the cunent proceeding. Therein, Joshua sought an evidentiary hearing in which to explore the relationship of the Court's previous role in this litigation to the current proceedings. The Joshua Intervenors sought the oppo11unity to develop a record regarding his honor's role in opposing recusal requests in this numbered case which were made by at least two of the parties regarding the late Honorable Henry L. Woods. 2. On October 29, 2002, the Court entered an Order \"denying\" the Joshua \"Motion for Hearing.\" Therein, the Comi inter alia indicated that it had \"represented\" Judge Woods \"approximately fifteen years ago ... .. \" in this mentioned case in co1mection with a mandamus petition by the Little Rock School Distiict and the Joshua Intervenors ( the latter represented by Mr. Walker among others). This Comi stated that \"the mandamus iss~es h-;;:d nothi~g-to- d; v~th the merits of the underlying case.\" 3. The Comi went on to say, as a finding of fact, that when the case was assigned to it that counsel John W. Walker \" ... lmew full well that, thirteen years earlier, I had represented Judge in the mandamus proceeding that Mr. Walker. himself. helped initiate.\" [ tmderlining represents the Court's emphasis] 4. The Comi later reemphasized the point that :tvfr. Walker was counsel of record for Joshua and one of the moving paiiies [the Court's emphasis] who filed the petition for wiit of mandamus. The Court went on to indicate that it would be willing to revisit the issue \"only if' the \"b1iefs\" the Court filed when in private practice differed from his \"clear recollection.\"  .,:, The Court also noted other concerns that it would address upon receipt and review of the \"briefs\" which he filed in this case on behalf of Judge Woods. 5. The Joshua Intervenors have retrieved from the Eighth Circuit archives and attach herewith one of what the Court Order implies is several \"briefs\" which it filed when in private practice in this numbered case. The Joshua Intervenors have requested the 8th Circuit Court Clerk for the docket entries in connection with the appeals. In that way, the Court can ascertain with certainity if the Court filed additional briefs while in private practice in the case herein. 6. Joshua also notes that its counsel, contrary to the findings of fact in the Order of October 29, 2002, which findings were underlined for emphasis, did not file a petition for the 2 Writ of Mandamus regarding the Judge Wood's recusal. In the opinion of the Court of Appeals decision which the Court cites as its support for the emphasized proposition, the Court noted at footnote 6: \"The Joshua Intervenors raise this-argument in the form of an appeal from the DistJ.ict Comi' s denial of their motion for recusal. LRSD brings this argument through a petition for Mandamus directed to this Court seeking an Order directing recusal, a petition suppo1ied here by the Joshua Intervenors. [ underlining for emphasis] 7. The Joshua Intervenors intend to request that the Court review its attached brief prepared while in private practice in this numbered case-as well as any other brief which it prepared in this case for any pmpose- and to then reconsider the facts which it found sua sponte in its Order of October 29, 2002. 8. In the event that the Comi reconsiders its Order of October 29, 2002, the Court may be - inclined to, at least, modify its earlier order and to afford the requested relief which is set forth therein. It is clear_ that some of the Court's findings regarding its role when in private practice are inconsistent with the findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the same matter. 9. The Joshua Intervenors intend to file a motion for recusal in the event that the Court itself refuses to recuse after it has reviewed the attachments hereto. 10. Notice of appeal is to be filed herein not later than November 11, 2002. The Court may extend such ruling upon a showing of good cause. Rule 4(a)(5)(A), Fed. R. App. Pro. Joshua believes that good cause exists in that there are umesolved questions for the Court to address regarding recusal. Good cause also exits because piece-meal appeals may otherwise be avoided. 3 11. There is no prejudice to the Little Rock School District if the request to extend the. time for filing notice of appeal is granted. \\VHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of having related matters proceed concurrently and in the interest of justice, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that they be allowed up to and including December 11, 2002 in which to file their notice of appeal. 1 \u0026lt;7 ' I i / I '  ,/ J/ i . / ,'f;\" /9--1\\ 1) ' j i / te_-!ld/h'.t;;,.:.J. .. , Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respect~y sub1~tted, , ) /  -~ ~i~i~L it/ /.i-tlig;ip- Jol:m .W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN w. w ALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 74-3758 (501) 37/187 (Fax) I .,. .- / I 0?1--- - _., ,/. r /,~-_  // ~.I.. ,\u0026gt;'\\ \\..._: I , .1{:'';.,, ,; ., ( .It\" ; Rickey Hicks, 11,R :Bar No. 89235 L . ) Attorney at aw~ :Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent v J a,-x and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this _j2 day of u,t,,9-,,,. , 2002: Nir. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 i...,: Nir. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building . Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 722 0 1-3 4 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 173 8 8 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 John w: Walker 5 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 87-2150 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. Appellees. IN RE: LITTLE ROCK SCH60L DISTRICT, PETITIONER Petition for Writ of Mandamus Directed To the United States District Court - for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorab~e HENRY WOODS, Judge RESPONSE OF THE HONORABLE HENRY WOODS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WM. R. WILSON, JR. Wilson, Engstrom, Corum \u0026amp; Dudley Post Offi9e Box 71 _ Little Rock, AR 72203  (501) 375-6453 Attorneys for Respondent STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Little Rock School District (LRSD) moved The Honorabl.e Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to recuse himself on April 24, 1987. The Motion was denied on April 30, 1987. Almost four months after the Order denying recusal, the LRSD petitioned this Court for a Writ of Mandamus ordering Judge Woods to recuse. The LRSD bases its petition on newspaper clippings, a sua soonte show cause order, newspaper photographs of LRSD students and Judge Woods, the Judge's law clerk's trip to LRSD administrative offices to pick up a list of the names and school addresses o~ LRSD principals, alleged ~ parte co mmu n i cations , and a 1 et t e r from Ju d g e Woo d s to a for mer LRSD school board member. 1 ARGUMENT I. . THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MUST BE DENIED SINCE IT IS UNTIMELY. It is clear, beyond peradventure, that the issue raised by the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is \"keggy. 11 The district court entered its Order denying LRSD's Motion t o R e cu s e o n A p r i l 3 0 , l 9 8 7 , a n d i t w as n o t u n t i 1 A u gu s t 24, 1987, that LRSD filed the petition for a writ - - a delay of nearly four (4) months. This Circuit has held that an unsuccessful petitioner in a situation such as this can bring the question before the Court of Appeals by a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. L i d d e.11 ~ B d . o f E d . o f C i t y o f ___~ L o u i s , 6 7 7 F . 2 d 6 2 6 (8th Cir . 1982). It is certain, however, that such a petition must be timely - - as it was not in the case a:t bar. I n co n s i de r i n g a n II a pp e a r a n c e of p a rt i a 1 i t y 11. i s s u e under Sec. 455(a), the 7th Circuit considered a petition which was filed several months after motions to recuse were denied . The Court held: .The Writ of Mandamus is the vehicle by which we may exercise our supervisory powers over the district courts with respect to Sec . 455(a).To require a timely pet.it ion. for a writ of mandamus for a sole remedy serves another important purpose: that\" of preventing injury to the public perception of the judicial system before it has a chance to occur. If a party is deprived of its substantial rights of a trial before an actually biased judge, the harm can be remedied (though not costlessly) by a new trial before an unbiased judge. But, the harm to the public's perception of the judicial system when a judge who appears to be biased proceeds in a case is much more difficult to correct. Prevention in such circumstances is clearly preferable to attempt to cure. Accordingly, we hold that when a judge denies a motion to disqualify himself under Sec. 455(a), the moving party's sole recourse is to apply to this court immediately for a Writ of Mandamus:' We, therefore shall not review Judge Warren's several denials of Balistrieri' s motions under Sec. 455(a) . (Emphasis supplied) . United States v. Balistrieri 779 F.2d 1191, 1205. (7th Cir . 1985). In U. S . v. Olds 426 F.2d 562 (3rd Cir. 1970), the district cou-rt granted a motion to modify and correct or vacate a sentence despite the fact that the motion was filed well beyond the 120 day limit set by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Approximately three (3) months after the district court's order became effective , the Government petitioned the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the district judge to set aside his order modifying the sentence, The court declined to express an opinion on the propriety or legality of the questioned order, and denied the petition 11 because of the Government's unexcused tardiness in pursu_ing its challenge .n (426 F.2d at 565). The court held: ... There is no inflexible rule of timeliness and we hesitate to create any. Rather, the question in each case is whether und~r all the circum.stances the remedy was pursued with reasonable dispatch. While the appeal period is in no way controlling, we point out that Government appeals in criminal cases, when permitted, must be filed within thirty (30) days after the entry of the order appealed from . . I n .:th i s c a s e , th e G o v e r n m e n t waited nearly three (3) months before seeking relief in this. court. No excuse whatsoever has been suggested for its inaction . .   . In sum, we hold that by waiting nearly three (3) months before seeking relief in this court, thus permitting a material change in the Olds 1 status, the Government did not proceed with reasonable dispatch under the circumstances. 426 F.2d at 565-566. Since Judge Woods entered his written order denying 4 !1 I I ! I I I ~--1 I I I I I I 11/ Ol / U2 .L2 : HI t '.U 314244.2405 Cli.W'.l'IJJlil\u0026lt;ll%, recusal of April 30 1987, a number of substantive orders were entered in this case. On May 8 1 1987, the court entered an order which severed the Clark case from the consolidated school desegregations. The Joshua Intervenors have appealed from that order . The court entered a nineteen - page order on May 13, 1987 dealing with teacher assignments. The LRSD has appealed that order. A May 22, 1987 order regarding student assignments has been appealed by LRSD. The Co1.,1rt 1s order of May 26 regarding the assignment of ma~net teachers has been appealed by the Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors have also appealed a June 16, 1 .9.87 order modifying the per pupil expenditure for magnet ... students. The Knight Intervenors have appealed the court's Ju l y 7, 1987 order clarifying the role of the Magnet Review Committee, and the July 8 order which permitted the Pulaski County Special School , District to recall black teachers affirmatively, so as to retain an acceptable level of black staff. No party has appealed the court 1s order of July 21, but that order authorized PCSSD to acquire the Ti mex f a cility and convert it into an elementary school. That co n version hes taken Judge Woods denied the motion to recuse orally on !pril 29 7 1987. place_ and the 11Daisy Bates Elementary 11 School is now operating. A July 27, 1987 order amended NLRSD's plan in order to deal with possible segregative effects of Arkansas Act 624 of 1 9 8 7 . 0 n A u gu s t 3 , 1 9 8 7 th e co u rt e n t e r e d a n or ct e r directing LRSD to show cause why it should not be held in contempt. LRSD was held to be in civil contempt by order dated August 7, 1987. LRSD has appealed that order. It was not until August 24, 1987, shortly after LRSD had been held in contempt, that it felt moved to seek this writ. In fine, at least thirteen 03) orders which , subs t 'a n ti a 11 y affected the part i es i n this case were entered in the four months between the order denying recusal and LRSD ' s petition for writ of mandamus . Further, at least eleven appeals have been taken in that time . In dealing with a delay of this nature , the 1st Circuit, in In~ United Sho~ Machinery Corporation, 276 F.2d 77 (1st Cir. 1960) quoted with app r oval the following language : 6 7 A litigant cannot experiment with a judge presiding over the case. We cannot permi.t .. a lit.igant to test the mind of the trial judge like a boy testing the temperature of the water in the pool with h.is toe, and if found to his liking, decides to take a plunge . (276 F . 2d at 79). ----- It is apparent that petitioners filed this petition for a writ only after being stung by the contempt order of August 7, 1987 (while they were flush with victory in virtually every area of this litigation). The Petition was nowise timely and should be dimissed out of hand to prevent manifest injustice. II. LRSD'S \"EVIDENCEJ OF THE APPEARANCE OF LACK OF IMPARTIALITY IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE RECUSAL LRSD has characterized its faculty assignmentsand c on t r a ct re g a rd i n g th .o s e as s i g n me n ts as II ma n a g e me n t prerogative . 11 (LRSD Petition for Writ paragraph 2) . Judge Woods considered the faculty assignmens to be an integral p a r t o f  t h e s t u d e n t a s s i g n m e n t a s p e c t o f t h e L R S D Desegration Plan . LRSD's discontent with Judge Woods is that he has noticed sua sponte its patent, notorious deviations from court approved desegregation plan. The Judge has insisted that all par~1es comply with court approved desegregation plans. (March 27 hearing p. 14). This Court has recognized the history of noncompliance with desegregation plans and court orders in school desegregation cases in Pulaski County, Arkansas. Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (8th Cir. 1985) ( 11NLRSD has failed to comply fully with desegregation orders of the district court .. . and this Court. \" ) Id. at 420. ( 11The district court found that PCSSD had failed to comply with [Judge Henley's] decree and noted that, at trial, many PCSSD Board of Education members were not even aware of the contents of the decree.tr) Tbis was crystal\\ clear to LRSD. In the Court's letter/order of March 20, 1987, Judge Woods said: . However, I am determined that the plan which I approved will be carried out. If a delay is necessary, I want you to come to me- and discuss the reasons why that is so. I am of the opinion that the plan can be put into effect if the measures which I stated above are taken . . All of these district plans are to be carried out and carried out in an effective manner, and I hope I have made this clear. If we cannot implement these plan~ in a way to insure quality schools, then I want them delayed until we can implement them correctly. Some of the problems that we have encountered in these three districts have resulted from not carrying out orders of the court. Zinna mon is a case in p oint . I a m determined that my orders be carried out or the court b~ given a sufficient -reason why they cannot be carried out without being modif i ed. No one h as asked to modify the pLan which you submitted and I approved, and I expect that it will be fully and carefully complied i~ith in every detail . The student assignment segment of the LRSD Desegregation Plan (Plan) approved by the Court contains two primary components : (1) an initial assignment for each stude.nt and (2) an optional 11controlled choice \" component by which students who were unhappy with their i nitial assignments could request alternate assignments. The alternate requests were to be \"controlled \" or constrained by the requirements availability. of racial balance and the space On February 27, 1987, the district court approved the 11 broad outli n e \" of L RSD's student assignme n t plan . The initial assignments were to be made based on only two factors, \" racial equity and mi ni mal busing . 11 (Plan p: 13) . By contrast, the \"controlled choice 11 component of the Plan was quite specific: \"After parents have been notified of the schools to which their children have been assigned, '. they will have a period of one month\" in which to make an alternate choice. (Plan at 13) . \"Parent s w i lJ. be a ct i v e 1 y encouraged to  visit . schools before making their selections \" (Plan at 12). (Emphasis theirs). \"School visits will be arranged during and after school hours. 11 (Plan at 12). 11Parents will have direct access to teachers and principals in all schools. 11 (Plan at 12) . 11 At 1 e as t t w o w eeks p r i or t o the re gist rat i on period , ea ch school will conduct parent information meetings in the schools. \" (P.lan at 12). By the explicit language of the Plan, the choice component was meant to be not only \" contr,olled, 11 but \"infor:'med .\" Initial assignments were sent home with school children on Wednesday, March 18th . Parents were jnstructed that alternate choices would have to be returned to LRSD's administrative offices by Apr.il 1, 1987, thirteen days later . Those thirteen (13) days included two weekends, a teacher work day and a week of spring breik during which all schools were closed. Parents were effectively given three (3) days to visit and - - - - - - - --- --- ------------ - ~ Court specifically ordered LRSD to nmake as little change as possible in the present staffing .. 11 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p.2) . A conference was held on March 27, 1987 at the request of LRSD . The Court repeated its concern that LRSD had unilaterally short-circuited vital components of its Plan by shortening the time and by failing to have staff in place. Counsel for LRSD, in an effort to persuade the Court to permit the shortening of the time, represented to the Court that parents could visit with staff even if the time were shortened since the district was in 11the final phases of assigning staff. 11 (M.i;irch 27th hearing at p . 8). Counsel . 1_: for LR SD v o 1 u n teer e d that staff assign men ts co u 1 d be completed within \"seven !_Q ten days 11 (March 27th hearing at p. 8). This assertion was not made in answer to a question by the Court, but rather was announced early in the hearing. Yet, LRSD now contends, 11In an unprecedented action, the district court sua sponte ordered LRSD to re - assign its faculty within ten (10) days (Petitioner ' s  Brief, p . ix . ) . \"Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein. 11 (Proverbs 26 : 27 l - At the March 27th hearing, counsel for LRSD made this flat - footed statement: nThere are not going to be major changes in staff at any secondary school, even at any elementary school. 11 (March 27th hearing, p. 10). At this 2 time, the court did not know, though presumably counsel for LRSD did know, that LRSD and its teachers' union, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA), had consummated a \"supplemental agreement 11 to the Professional Negotiations Agreement (PNA) which was before the Court . This supplemental agreement, though not before the Court, differed materially from the LRSD desegregation 3 plan approved by the Court . Nonetheless, teacher assignments were made on April 10th in conformity with that supplemental agreement . By terms of the supplemental agreement, a _hypothetical \"model faculty\" was con..structed by computing the district aver~ges of the 1986~87 LRSD teacher pool for the following factors : (1) gender (2) education (3) experience (4) age and (5) race. By the terms of the 2 3 The first inkling the court had of the existence of this supplemental agreement was whe n it was attached to LRSD's April 22 Recusal Motion. At the April 27th hearing, LRSD contended that its Plan had always included the five factors l i sted above . LRSD's expert told the Court that 11 i n telligent people 71 would have understood that t):1e Pla,n included these constraints . (April 29 hearing, p . 255) . This agreement (which LRSD now contends was made nimmediately \" after July, 1986 (Petition p . 2)) was actually consu mm ated on March 5, 1987 . supplemental agree~ent, assignments macte for 1987 - 88 were required to mirror would tolerate but 1986 - 87 LRSD staff demographics and a s i x ( 6 ) /p e r c e n t de vi at i on f r o m th e average. This, ,in spite of the fact that LRSD knew it woufd add fourteen annexed schools and se~en thousand students in 1987- 88 . Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of this case could plainly see that balancing .five factors to within six percentage points of the exact average would require tremendous shifts in existing faculty. It had been clear since November, 1986, that LRSD would gain 7,000 new students (over 35% of its 1986-87 student population ) , w h i ch , w o u 1 d o b v i o u s 1 y '.' i n v o 1 v e h i r i n g ma ri y new fa cu l t y members. It is hard to understand why LRSD counsel, aware of the agreement, assured the Court on March 27th that there would \"not be major [staff] changes 11 (March 27th hearing, p . 10). As noted, the Court had no knowledge that this \"modeP would be used until April 20th. But simple logic reveals s er i o u s fl a.w s in the rn ode 1. F or e x a mp le , L RS D con ceded that the vast majority of elementary teachers in 1986- 87 were female. (April 29 hearing, p. 232). Yet, the 11model1' e. would freeze as \"ideal\" the 1986 - 87 ratio of . male to female teachers! This is not, however, a lawsuit concerning gender. It does concern race. The Plan approved by the district court states: \"The reorganized Little Rock School District should be staffed disegregatively accor ding to two policy guidelines: (1) 11staff ratios will comply with the Order of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which allows a deviation of one - fourth of the remedial guideline,\" and (2) \"black staff will comprise at least one-half (1 / 2) of all personnel in each position or job description. \" (Plan at p . 16, 17). The Plan furthe r states: \"The timetable fully to implement the staffing re medial policy guideline is five years. 11 (Plan ,at 17). It was a material change in the Plan for LRSD to agree to add four factors to the race issue; it was a material change to agree to a six percent deviation in the racial ratio rather than the Plan's 25%; it was a mater i al change to shorten the five year implementat i on to one year. LRSD complains that the Court noticed the massive teacher reassignments sua ~E...!:.~ (Petition, p. 3, .para graph l O) and further complains that the Court improperly concluded that LRSD had violated previous Orders . The L RS D a d m i t t e d by letter d at e d March 25, 1987 (Petitioner's Exhibit PX-5) and in open Court that it had changed the Plan without prior court a pp r Q v a t Cl e.a.r-1-:f-i-6-R-.D---a-1-m--.:i:-t--1;-e-1- \\r:i:-er-l1-,a..+L +i-nn\"\"g,.......,p'\"'r-.e~v .,i .. ,,,o;rQisc\" C\"'\"'.o;:;u;-;-;::r+=t_ ____ i orders. The LRSD cites not a single case to support its I position that a federal district court mus~ sit idly by while a school district notoriously violates court desegregation orders (and wait for some party to invite the Court to enforce its orders). In Busch Y...:._ Sea World.[ Qhio, 95 F . R.D. 336 (W.D . Pa. 1982) the Court took judicial notice that a certain corporation had begun an advertising blitz via newspapers, radio and television. The Court, in Barnes v. Bosley, 568 F. S-upp-. 14'Oo (E'.D. Mo. 1983), took judicial notice that the Democratic party was firmly in control of political .~ o f f i c ~ s i n S t . L o u i s . L i k. e w i s e , J u d g e D a vi es n o t i c e d sua sponte the actions of then-governor Orval Faubus. See Faubus v. United States 254 F . 2d 797 (8th Cir . 1958). 4 LRSD Ex. PX-9 is a letter from Judge Woods to .. Ruth Shepherd, an immediate past LRSD board member. LRSD contends that this indicates the judge 1s \"prejudgment \" of issues to be presented at the April 29th show cause hearing. As is apparent 1 on April 1, 1987, the date of the letter, staff assign men ts had not been made; no show cause Order had been issued. The Court had no reason to disbelieve LRSD counsel when he assured the Court four d a y s e a r 1 i e r th at th er e w o u 1 d b e n o ma j o r s t a f f ch-a n g e s . The language concerning disregard of the Plan in virtually e Ve r y d e t a i l i s an O b Vi Ou s r e f e re n C e- t O th e f a i 1 u re Of LRSD to carry out the features of controlled choice contained in the Plan . The Court had no way to know that as that letter was being written~ LRSD. was actively viO'\"lat rng the cfirecfioffsot he .March 27th Order. .,. I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I    I  '  \".\"' ~ Recalcitrant . school districts throughout this Circuit would delight in a holding th~t desegregation orders can be bol d-ly --arrd--p,:rb-1-rci.y-\u0026amp;e\"fIT~so J'. on g as no pa r-t y has the temerity or motivation to file a formal pleading. Multiple exhibits extracted from two local papers have be e n at t a ch e d t o th e L .RS D P et i t i on t o sup p o r t th. e proposition that a reasonable person would conclude that the appearance of impartiality had been lost through ex parte communications . To the contrary, the exhibits demonstrate only that the Petitioner's allegations are without basis in fact. Of the twenty-two articles submitted, five made no reference whatsoever to Judge I Woods. The remaining articles chronicle the reactions - of various groups and in~ividuals to orders issued by the Judge. In not one of the submitted articles does there appear an ex parte -comment attributable to the Judg7_ which go to the merits of any pending issue. Two newspaper photographs depict Judge Woods with students ironically LRSD students, not students from NLRSD or PCSSD. These photographs hardly create the appearance of bias against LRSD . Two articles refer to statements made by an unnamed spokesman for Judge Woods. Surely these triple hearsay statements (the newspaper reporter said that the unknown source said that the Judge said) cannot be considered as credible evidence justifying  the disquali~iG-act--i-G-H- --Of-- a- - ~g- . -- --- LRSD cites Price Brothers Co.~ Philadelphia Gear Corporation, 629 F.2d 444 (6th Cir. 1989) for the proposition that a Judge's sending his law clerk to gathe~ evidence is destructive to the appearance of impartiality. In Price Brothers, the Circuit Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. In the appeal of the proceedings after remand, the Sixth Circuit found that the law clerk's trip from the Southern District of Ohio to New York to observe the machines in the Plaintiff's factory did not ~ w-arranf r eversal. Price Brothers Co. ~ Philadelphia Gear .fS'...:.., 6 4 9 F . 2 d 4 1 6 ( 6 t,_ h C i r. 1 9 8 l ) . .:t The law clerk's viewing of the machine to help the Judge better understand how the machine worked was not considered as \"evidence\" in the case. Similarly obtaining a current list of principals in the LRSD was hardly 11evidence 11 in this case. The names and school addresses of the LRSD principals has never been in dispute. It is absurd to consider the picking up of an undisputed list of names and addresses as ngathering evidence. 11 Additionally, the Sixth Circuit in both Price Brothers opinions indicated that consent, even implied consent, to the law clerk's participation would be a factor in considering their later objection to the law clerk's action. By ER-S-B~ LRSD administrative offices (where at least two LRSD attorneys were present) and was told by the ~ecretary (after checking) that a list of principals was available . LRSD would also have Judge Woods recuse because delegations of LRSD students arrived unannounced at his office to present a petition complaining of LRSD's violations of its Plan. If such an incident requires recusal, then any party who wishes to go \"judge shopping 11 need merely show up at a judge's office with a photographer and a petition .  . ., III. IT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE ~ARTIES OR THE PUBLIC TO REQUIRE JUDGE WOODS TO RECUSE Notably, the L RSD seeks Judge Woods' recus a 1 lfas ed on .. 28 U.S . C. Sec. 455(a) which concerns the appearance of partiality rather than actual bias. In truth and in fact, LRSD has been the beneficiary of virtually all of Judge Woods' rulings over the five years of litigation in this school desegregation case. As Petitioner notes, Sec. 455(a) is primarily intended 1 q , I to insure public confidence in the impartiali.ty of the judicial process, not to protect litigants from actual Court of Appeals recently held that in a Sec. 455(a) rec u s al action, abs en t ..!:_~~ of person~ 1 bias , the reviewing Court should consider, inter alia, whether re-'-assignment to a dif_'_ferent judge would entail a waste and duplication out of proportion to the gain in preserving the appearance of fairness. Cinton v. Union Pacific R a i 1 r o a d f.2.:_, 813 F. 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 21 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) . This lawsuit now embodies well over nine hundred pleadings. It is difficult to imagine a more vivid illustration of d { spr~portionate waste and duplication involved in reassigning this case~~ this stage of the game. But more :~ i mp o ; t a n t 1 y , th e p u b 1 fc mu s t be a s s u r e ct th at ea ch p a r t y will abide by court orders, regardless of its status as 11pla int iff\" or \"defendant. 11 IV. CONCLUSION The district court correctly summed up the LRSD attitude in his April 30th Order when he noted: .LRSD's Motion to Recuse represents a time-worn tactic in sports contests and trials. When the umpire or judge calls you for a flagrant violation of the rules, your response is not to offer a defense for your conduct but to attack tlre, nrrvrre- oi'\"\"'ttre\"-j'trd~g, . . . . WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the LRSD Petition for Writ of Mandamus be summarily denied. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM \u0026amp; DUDLEY P. 0. Box 71 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-6453 Attorneys for Respondent .. . '.,(, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing Response to Little Rock School District's Petition for Writ of Mandamus has been sent via Federal Express to all attorneys listed be-low whose mailing address is other than Little Rock, AR, and has been delivered by hand to all attorneys in Little Rock, AR on this 21st day of September, 1987 to : Philip E. Kaplan, Esquire 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201 P. A. Hollingsworth, Esquire 415 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Janet L. Pulliam, Esquire One Spri._nP- S~r~~-t,_ .Znd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 Randy McNair, Esquire 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard -W .- Roa-eh-e-H,-E-squ-re-~-  - ----~------------- -Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203 Theodore Shaw, Esquire NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, New York 10013 Robert C. Lowry, Esquire 905 Boyle Building Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker, Esquire. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 M. Samuel Jones, III., Esquire 2200 Worthen Bank Building LJttJe _fioc_k,. AB  7_2201 Philip K. Lyon, Esquire Stephen W. Jones, Esqu~re 3400 Capitol Tower -~ Capitol at Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Phil Neal, Esquire 208 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 William H. Trice, Esquire 211 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Robert Cabe, Esquire 1615 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Hillary Clinton, Esquire Rose Law Firm 120 East 4th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -. i  .., I 7 I I !  7 ! ~7- 7 j ,, Lazar Palnick, Esquire 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 John --M .- -El-i..J.l:w.J:.-me-F-, - ~1.1-i P.e --- -c/ o Ketron, Inc. 1700 North Moore Street Ste. Arlington, Virginia 22209 David Flynn, Esquire 1710 Civil Rights Division Room 5740 Department of Justice Washingtbn, D.C. 20530 Carl R. Brents, Clerk U. S. District Court Post Office . Box 869 Little Rock, AR 72203 Sharon Streett Department of Education 304A Arch Ford Education State Capitol Mall Little _R_ock, _ Ajl  l2~01 Building .... : ... ,,.. SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT As Petitioner has noted, the Motion to Recuse is --- ------ ---------~----------........ - - - -- purportedly ~ottomed upon statements and actions taken by the district court in response to LRSD ' s faculty assignment plan. Petitioner has requested oral argument and Respondent will be pleased to have this issue argued orally. At the same time, however, Respondent urges the Court to consider this specific issue (recusal) in an expedited manner. Otherwise, thousands of students will be attending school under plans that are clouded by this issue. This issue can be argued in fifteen minutes per side. TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMM-A-RY AN{) R-EQ+J-E-S'f-~H\u0026gt;,R G-R-Ab  -A-RGlJ.M-E-N..'f .. ,-,--------- -----TABL E OF CONTENTS .. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. STATEMENT OF ISSUES . STATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENTS I. THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MUST BE DENIED AS ii iii iv-v 1 UNTIMELY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. LRSD I S \"EVIDENCE 11 OF THE APPEARANCE OF LACK OF IMPARTIALITY IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE RECUSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - - -- ~. III. IT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE PARTIES OR THE PULIC TO REQUIRE JUDGE WOODS TO RECUSE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 CONCLUSION ADDENDUM i i .... .. 20 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Barnes v. Bosley r- . 5.6.K. E .. S.U.p.p Mo. 1983) ... .. ..   Busch v . Sea World of Ohio, 95 F . R.D. 336 (W.D . Pa.1982) . . . . . . . .... Cinton v . Union Pacific Railroad Company, 813 F.2d917 (9th Cir . 1987) .. .. . Faubus v. United States, 254 F. 2d 797 (8th Cir . 1958) . ...  .. . . .. . lE_ Re United Show Machinery Corporation, 276 F . 2d 77 (1st Cir. 1960) ... .. . . Liddell v . Board of Education of City of St. Louis'; 677 F . 2d 676 (8th Cir . 1982J. Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F . 2d 404 (8t fi Cir . 19-8\"5Y . . .  ... .  .. . .. . 16 16 20 16 6, 7 2 8 Price Brothers Co.~ Philadelphia Gear Corp . ~ 629 F.2d 444 (6t'.b Cir . 1980) . . . 18 v,,. Price Brothers Co . v . Phi l adelphia Gear Corp., 6 4 9 F . 2 d 416 ( 6~ C i r . 19 81 ) . . . -. - .- . . . . 1 8 United States v . Balistrier i, 779 F . 2d 1191 (7th Cir.1985) . . . . . . . 2, 3, 20 United States v . Olds, 426 F . 2d 562 (3rd Ci r . 1970) .. -. -. - .-. . . . . . . . STATUTES 28 U. S . C. Sec .. 455(a) ..... . ...... . passim i i i STATEMENT OF ISSUES I. Whether Petitioner's failure either to appeal the April 30th Order denying the recusal motion or to petition this Court for a Writ of Mandamus for almost four months bars this application for mandamus relief. In Re United Show Machinery Corporation, 276F.2\u0026lt;;! 77 (1st Cir. 1960) United States v . Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) United States~ Olds, 426 F.2d 562 (3rd Cir. 1970) II. Whether the district court judge abused his discretion --by -flndi ng that a reasonable per~on knowing all the pertinent facts would believe that Judge Woods could n o t b e i mp a rt i a 1 t o th e\" L i t t 1 e R o ck S ch o o 1 D i s t r i ct w h e n the 11 evidence\" consists of: a. Newspaper clippings covering publicity surrounding the Judge's Orders; b. Newspaper photographs of the Judge pictured with LRSD students; c. A responsive letter to a former member of LRSD Board of Directors from i V the Judge; d. A trip to LRSD administrative LRSD principals for the 1987- 88 school year; e. Non - specific allegations of ex ~~!~ telephone conversations, unsupported by specific dates, times, or people or by affidavits . Barnes v. Bosley, 568 F.Supp. 1406 (E.D. Mo . 1983T Busch v . Sea World of Ohio, 95 F.R . D. -336 (.W.-D- . .e.a _ .198.2) -- - -- Faubus v. United States, 254 F .2d 797 (8th Cir. -1958) ,,., : ~ Price Brothers Co. v . Phi l adelphia Gear Corp . , 649 F . 2d 416 (6th Cir. 1981) III. Whether it is in the interest of the parties or the public to require Judge Woods to recuse absent proof of actual bias . Cinton v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 813 F . 2d 917(9th Cir . 1987) - United States v . Balistrie r i, 779 F. 2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985 V IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. 4:82CV00866 WR W/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al ~RS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED NOV 1 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL This case has been tried and decided, and all parties are entitled to have it resolved, once and for all, as soon as reasonably possible. Counsel for Joshua indicates that he anticipates filing a recusal motion at some time in the indefinite future. In my judgment, it would be inappropriate to delay this case because such a motion will be, or might be, filed. Accordingly, the request for an extension is denied. I'm inclined to agree that the Eighth Circuit should be afforded the opportunity to decide any recusal issue that may arise, along with other issues already decided. So, if Joshua files a recusal motion promptly, I will rule on it promptly. If Joshua doesn't prevail on the recusal motion, they can move the Eighth Circuit to consolidate the issues on appeal. Another order will be entered shortly which will address other issues raised by Joshua's Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day ofNovember, 2002. w~t!f () \u0026lt;-- K lfll~111if' m. R. Wilson, r. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE L 7 0 1 IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al -MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGIIT, et al DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION Olf TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL This case has been tried and decided, an.d aH parties are entitled to have it resolved, once and for all, as soon as reasonably possible. Counsel for Joshua indicates that he anticipates filing a recusal motion at some time in the - indefinite future. In my judgment, it would be inappropriate to delay this case because such a motion will be, or might be, filed. Accordingly, the tequest for an extension is denied. I'm inclined to agree that the Eighth Circuit should be afforded the opportunity to decide any recusal issue that may arise, along with other issues already decided. So, if Joshua files a recusal motion promptly, l will rule on it promptly. If Joshua doesn't prevail on the recusal motion, they can move the Eighth Circuit to consolidate the issues on appeal. Another order will be entered shortly which will address other issues raised by Joshua's Motion. fT rs SO ORDERED this llt!.1 day of November, 2002. w.~ !L({ZPh111tr- UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE  TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 Chris Heller \u0026amp; Clay Fendley Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennis Hanson Ann MAl'shall 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 663-6939 374-4187 682-2591 371-0100 There are Z.., pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 413 Little Rock, A.-kansas 72201 Christy Conrad, LRSD Law Clerk 604-5143 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS . 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED NOV 1 3 2002 QFflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 1..,_v  1r, yyppa r,u ,,-1 IV ,.....,;\u0026lt;, u.s~ilkf.FcQRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 1 2 2002 ~~MES~~Ep ? PLAINTri?~P. CL~ DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS  AMENDED ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL This case, as it relates to LRSD, has been tried and decided, and all parties are entitled to have it resolved, once and for all, as soon as reasonably possible. Counsel for Joshua indicates that he anticipates filing a recusal motion at some time in the indefinite future. In my judgment, it would be inappropriate to delay this case because such a motion will be, or might be, filed. Accordingly, the request for an extension is denied. I'm inclined to agree that the Eighth Circuit should be afforded the opportunity to decide any recusal issue that may arise, along with other issues already decided. So, if Joshua files a recusal motion promptly, I will rule on it promptly. If Joshua doesn't prevail on the recusal motion, they can move the Eighth Circuit to consolidate the issues on appeal. Another order will be entered shortly which will address other issues raised by Joshua's Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12thday ofNov, e,._20-m=.0'-2-.- b-e_-r-_-------- THIS DOCUMENT ENTERLJ ON  Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. DOCKET SHEET iN COMPLIANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WITJi RULE 58 AND/OR~R7C9P (a ON lf-/;....,o,_-BY ~?'7\"\"---\"-'-'=-== DiLLWiLSON JUDGE UNiTEO STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS IKIIJ W. CAPITOL, HOOM 423 LITfl.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 7220i-332$ \\~U I J tJiU4-:t l 'tU Fii.:slmlle (GOf) \u0026amp;G45146 -l\\lf-'lm....=...\u0026gt;....,...... ..hAr 10 ')()()\"') _...,~ .... -, ---- BYP'AX Mr. Chris Heller \u0026amp; Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Sam Jones 376-2147 376-9442 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. John Walker Mr. Dennis Hanson Ms. Ann Marshall \".\u0026gt;'7C: 1 f'l/')'7 ..J t ._J-.LU..GI 663-6939 374-4187 682-2591 371-0100 RE: Littie Rock t\u0026gt;chool District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., 4:82CV00866 WRW /JTR Enclosed is a copy cf an Order ,.;vhich amends the Order I entered earlier toda:f in which I denied Joshua's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeai. The first sentence of the Amended Order is simply to narrow the scope of the Order-- since we are considering LRSD, a..1'1.d not the othe:r school districts . cc: The Honorable J . Thomas Ray Original to the Clerk \\ 1/m. R. \\1Jilson, Jr.  TO: F.A_X COVER SHEET ONITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTEPJV DISTPJCT OF ARKA.lfSAS Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 Chris Heller \u0026amp; Cfay Fendley Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennis Hanson Ann Marshall 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 663-6939 374-4187 682~259} 371-0H!O DATE: NotJQ..vv\\htlf ! 7-, zooz_ There 2re 3=, pages, including this Co...-er Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of U.S. District Court 600 West Capito!, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas i2201 Christy Conrad, LRSD Law Clerk _604-5143 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. * * * * 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors, * ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 1 2 2002 In Joshua's Motion for Extension of Time to file notice of appeal, filed on November 8, 2002, they object to the statement in my order of October 29, 2002 in which I state that Mr. Walker helped to initiate the mandamus proceeding (against Judge Woods). Technically, Joshua is correct. On a review of the record, it appears that Mr. Walker did not proceed via mandamus, but, instead, Joshua directly appealed Judge Woods' denial of Joshua's motion for him to recuse. Joshua's position, in this regard, clearly elevates form over substance. Regardless of how it was styled, Joshua was seeking the identical relief sought by LRSD back at that time-- the removal of Judge Woods from the case. I quote again from the Eighth Circuit's opinion: We tum now to the arguments made by LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors that the District Court should have granted their motion for recusal. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 1301. There is an eloquent silence in Joshua's most recent motion -- it does not address the issue of waiver and estoppel. The point here is that Joshua's counsel knew to a lead pipe certainty of my -2- representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding in 1987. In fact, the certificate of service on the Eighth Circuit brief! submitted on behalf of Judge Woods shows Mr. Walker as one of those lawyers who was served. (See Response of The Honorable Henry Woods, US. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- which was attached to Joshua's November 8 motion). This being so, it is hard not to believe that Joshua's counsel -waited to see how the case turned out, and, when the result did not suit them, they then raise the recusal issue. The Eighth Circuit has long disapproved of this tactic . ... .it is clear that some of the Court's findings regarding its role when in private practice are inconsistent with the findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the same matter .... I am without a clue as to what Joshua means by the above-quoted language. In any event, after having reviewed the brief that I filed on behalf of Judge Woods in 1987 I see no reason to change my mind in any respect, and see nothing in the brief that adds anything to Joshua 's earlier motion for a hearing. None of the issues, listed by way of history only, in that brief were before me in the current litigation. And, as stated in my earlier order, I represented none of the parties, and had no involvement in the merits of the case. So, with respect to my order of October 29, 2002, I'll stand pat -- Joshua's request that I reconsider that order is denied. rft IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 2 day of November, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERL.J ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WI/Tt._ RULE 58 AND/OR 7~9 )) FFR RCCFP ON _t_/;)..,{;))--BY ~ -7~_...,\u0026lt;;..:'--~- 9Nr!lOllNOW NOllVS3HS3S30 ~O 3~1.HO ZOOl 8 I AON LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. i\\1RS . LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KN1GHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 1 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINO NOTICE OF APPEAL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors give notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to Honorable William R. Wilson Jr. 's memorandum opinions and/or judgments entered herein on September 13, 2002 and October 11, 2002 respectively. ) ,/i) .,, ,/ ~- ,/ ,, ~!,, '/!Ji.;f I f.-,.,. . J/._ /J/!,rla_ 1 ---:\"i;:J Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 J n . Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 Rickey H. Hicks Attorney At Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been forwarded to all counsel of record via United States mail, postag repaid on this 2th day 'November, 2002. / \\ RECEIVED FiLr::0,-. ;:::.,s lJ.s. DIST-R \"- --n, TERN DISTRICT COURT ICT ARKA,\"iJSAS NOV 1 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING NOV 18 2G02 JAMES W ti, By   ilcCORMA CK Ct  \" , -ER!'( IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlJRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 82:CV00866 WRW PlJLASKI COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICT, ET AL. NfRS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE W. Ki'\\ITGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS PCSSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL STTE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court further extend the time for their response to the pending motion of the PCS SD regarding the construction of a middle school in the Maumell e area. The Joshua Intervenors have requested the perspective of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the subject. The parties have not yet been privy to that for the reasons which relates to the personal circumstances of the ODM Director, M,s. Nfa.rshall. (See Exhibit 1 - Letter dated November 18, 2002 to Honorable Judge William R Wilson) Counsel for Joshua have sought to obtain the concurrence of the PCS SD counsel and learned that he is out ill today. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court extend the time to and including December 6, 2002 for their response to PCSSD's Motion for Approval of 1'liddle School site. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) ./ ./ CERTIFlCA TE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent via United Stat es mail postage prepaid to all counsel ofrecord on this 1g r1i day of Novem.,b er, 200J- . . /: ,'\\ I I ./ / ( /~ !-- '1-- C/?L_,{/- 17 '\\ ': 1 ,,, VVV'-- vr \" .;/r c,.\u0026lt;.. '---\"'L/ .. 2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. '\\iVALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA,'{ (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 604-5149 November 18, 2002 .Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Case No_ 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: OF COUNSEL ROBE..\"'l.T McHENRY. P _-\\.. DONNA J . .McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON Ro.w LITTLE ROCK. ARK.-u'IS.-\\S 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3423 ~Lill: mchenryci@swbell.nec RECEIVED NOV 1 9 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING We asked the Court to extend the time for responding to the PCSSD's motion for approval of middle school site until tomorrow, November 19, 2002. The court allowed the request. A partial basis for the request was the intercession of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with a possible report for the use and benefit of the parties. No one objected to ODNf's involvement. In the meantime, ODM.Director Ann Marshall has experienced well known personal problems of increasing magnitude over the past several weeks which resulted in the funeral of her husband, Mr. Norman Marshall on Saturday, November 16, 2002. We can . understand the reason for any delay from that office. On the basis of those unfortunate circumstances, we are requesting that the Court extend the ODM up to and including December 3, 2002 in which to make its report. We will be prepared to respond to the pending motion of Mr. Jones within three days thereafter and would request that we be allowed!until December 6, 2002 to make that submission. I appreciate whatever consideration the Court will allow. JWW:js cc: :ivfr. Sam Jones Ms. Ann 1Iarshall All Other Counsel EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERTS . LIN D SEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F . COX, JR .  TROY A . PRICE PATR ICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY, JR . KATHRYN A . PRYOR GORDON S. RATHER, JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD . JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATH LYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR . CHARLES L. SCHLU MBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JO NES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTI NA E . BROWNSTE IN WALTER McSPA DOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE JOHN 0 . DAV IS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY Via Hand Delivery 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R . VAN DOVER Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjones@wlj.com November 19, 2002 The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 J . MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J . DAUGHERTY, Ph .D .  MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING ERIKA ROSS SCOTT ANDREW IRBY HOLLY A. ACEE MICHELLE HARGIS DILLARD PATR ICK 0 , WILSON Licensed to practice before the Unffed States Patent and Trademark Office RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a copy of the PCSSD objection to Joshua's request for a further delay in ruling upon the pending PCSSD motion respecting a new middle school in Maumelle. MSJ:ao Encl. cc/w/encl.: 380184-v1 Judge J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP drrs.,,, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL .DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NOV 2 0 2002 INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING PCSSD'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO JOSHUAINTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR EXTENSION FO TIME TO RESPOND TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE The PCSSD, for its response states: 1. The PCSSD objects to the further requested enlargement of time. 2. Previously, the parties negotiated an enlargement of time until and including November 19, 2002, for the response of Joshua. 3. The PCSSD is unaware of any directive by this Court to the ODM as respects this issue. The PCSSD notes, however, that the ODM, unlike Joshua, was a full participant in the site selection process. 4. Accordingly, the PCSSD respectfully submits that Joshua has not advanced a good and sufficient reason to further postpone the process of this Court ruling upon the pending request of the PCSSD to locate its new middle school in Maumelle. 380181-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the Joshua motion be denied and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On November 19, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile on Mr. John Walker and via U.S. mail on each of the following: VIA FACSIMILE Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 380181 -v1 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 1::0W'AHO L , WRl(,t'l't pan,. u 11~ R:O!H'.J:tT S . LlNO~EY fU 13- 199tl 18AAC A , SCOTT, J\" . JOHN G . LI LE 0:0~1)0~ S. RATHER , JR. TE~RY L. MATHfWS ;:;. .:..;;c M. ~c,w..,;. ROGE~ A. G, ASOOW C DOVC LAS a~r-a,qc , .:~. PATRICK J . COSS A l_.$ Tt')N ..Jl:MHIN tlS . J~ JOHN R. TISDALE l(ATMLYN GR4VES M. BAMU'EL J ON$ Il l JOHN WII..LIAM .!SPIV~Y Ill Lt'~ J , MULOROW 11 .M. N0~1'0N i;H;..FH,,fS C. F~1CE. CHAACES T. COLEMAN J1't-'fe J . v .. o veR EDWIN L LOWTHER . JR. CH.-.~L~.! I. .!CMLUMIP!!:'lG''!P\\ W~LTf.R E. MAY OREOOAY T . JONES H . Kt lTM MORRISON lli!TTINA E. lllAOWNSTEIN WALTiA Mc.SPA00fN ROGt.R 0 . ROWE ;o;-.1,_ c. oa,ns JUOY s rMMONS M@NJIY Via Hand Delivery WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORME:YS ;\\ \"! L!'.. 'N 200 WEST CAP ITOL AVENUE SUl'r E. 220~ LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 1n 01 . 3699 (50 1) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376942 OF COuN'iEL ALSTON JENN INQS RCXAi.C ;.. . ,.:.;c; BRIJCf A. . LINOSEY J.11kf! ~ R.. VAN CCV~~ Wri ter, Olrecl Di a l No . So 1.21 2.12r3 .,)ones@w1J.com November 19, 2002 The Honorable V\\Jm. R. Wilson, Jr. 600 West Capito!, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 K IM8RI. Y \\l'/000 TUC J\u0026lt;fF( ~,. 1 f C.CA , J,;.: .  TR:OV A, P~1ce ::i:. \":'R::.~;.. 2 :;.:~~:, H.:..~~l~ JAMES M MOOOV. JR . 11.t.TMDV lli! .~ . P R VOP J . MARI( 0.4\\/JS CI.A I Ft E SMOW8 Ml.. NCOCK l( E,Vlf'ril V-t . K!.NNEOV JEaav J. SALUNGS WILLIAM .:!TUAl'l1' JACK.SON MICWAEL O 8A.R:NES l!.7i;;:.,;a;,.. ~ . LANCA,5Te l'f JUDY ROBINSON WJL6tR l(':\"L: r,. W:t .. :-Ot.' C , TAO 80M4 NNON Ki; l!, T I U . Uf')l'){W J . C\"AP.US OOUGHtRT'f' M . SEAN HATCH .J . ANO\"EW' VlN~S .JUST IN T . A U.EN CHRISTINE J. OAUOMER,TV . Pl'l.0  MICHfLLE hi . KAEMMERLING ER+li\\ A. ~OS~ SCOTT ilNDAEW 1R6Y \u0026gt;; Ci..._; A. ;..o~~ '-\"1 1CHEl.. i. ! MAR.0 13 OILLAR:0 P A. 1'\"-JCI( .t\" wn .. SON L\"='9,,~~t1 ti:i ,ar!!:eti-:.e ~~~ !l,e ~!':!?~ 51\"1 Psrenr ena Tr\u0026amp;ll9rnsfl\u0026lt; Office Littie Rock Schooi District v. PuIasK1 County Special School District; et al. r USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00B66WRW ., . ( Re: Dear Judge Wilson: --,/\\If~/~ JV ' l\u0026gt;\"' Enclosed is a copy of the PCSSD objection to Joshua's request for a further delay in7 r'J!ing upon the per.ding PCSSD motion ;espacting a new middle schooi in iviaumelie. / MSJ:ao Enc!. cc/w/enc!.: 38C1S4-v1 Judge J. Thomas R.ay All Counsel of Record Cordiaiiy yours, ':AAt.AI cmr-. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP r;}.J~ oAt-J~ ~ ~A- Jones, !II iJli., ,J I_ If-() 2- ( ' , - /'d_ ~/4 t-1~ /4r C~\" I n. _ ~.J)/) /11,-,1 /J~ I V ./ ,//' - d\"rlf~' )U ..... V.  TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKA.i.\\TSAS Telepb.one 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 Chris Heller \u0026amp; Clay Fendley Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennb Hanson Ann Marsha!! 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 663-6939  374-4187 682-2591 371-0100 There are Y pages, including this Co\\.er Sheet, being sent by thfa facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Jud e m. R. Wilson, Jr. U. S. District c'ourt 600 West Capito!, Room 423 Little Rock, Ar-kansas 72201 Christy Conrad, LRSD Law Clerk 604-5143 RECEIVED FILED U.S. DISTi'\u0026lt;ICT COURT NOV 2 1 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OFFICEOF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTER.t~ DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV 2 0 2002 DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ___~ P=L~AIN~=T=I=~=p=- c=L-E-R---K VS. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al R ECEIVf r- DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al r\" DESEer'\" ... ~ . .i .. G ORDER Yesterday, I received a letter and motion from Joshua's counsel requesting an extension of their deadline for responding to PCSSD's motion for approval of a middle school site. Joshua - requested a new deadline of December 6, 2002, in order to allow the ODM up to and including December 3, 2002, to report to the panies regarding the motion. Joshua's request for an extension is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2/4. u)~L=-= Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET ~LIANCE WITH~ULE 58 AN~  oN //~MJ;)::) sv~~~g,~ 708 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 de Case: 4:82-cv-00866 FILED u S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV 2 5 2002 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. \"MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATH;ERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED DEFENDANTS NOV 2 6 2002 INTERVENORS DFFICE0F INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Court has received the 2002-2003 budget for the Office-of Desegregation Monitoring. The budget is attached to this Order for the parties' review. The parties have to and including fifteen days from entry of this Order to file objections regarding the proposed budget. ,\\ IT IS SO ORDERED tlris lS_ day ofNovember, 2 1 00/ ~---------------- -- / 4 ~ - UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 A~79C)) FRCP , 0 N / /-e,..S--O ~ \\., Q,0._, \u0026amp;-J 3 -Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District ot Arkansas Jls. Marshall, Federal Monitor November 20, 2002 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Coun 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Attached is the ODM budget for 2002-03, which reflects your requirements. The format of the budget document follows that of our previous budgets, including annotations to explain revenue calculations, definitions of budget categories, and the budgeted allocations for the year by category. Revenue for the year is apportioned among the three school districts according to the previous year's October 1 enrollment. Once the October 1, 2002 enrollment is known, we will adjust each district's contribution to conform to those figures. As is our practice, we credit the difference in budgeted expenses and actual expenditures proportionately to the school districts according to each district's pro-rated contribution to our budget. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will gladly provide it. Sincerely yours, ~77(~ Ann S. Marshall ~ v\u0026lt;c: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Enc. - - - OFFI CE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING: BUDGET FOR 2002-03 i i ' I I l I I I I REVENUE Sta te of Arkansas LR SD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year Equals LRSD's share of the budget NL RSD 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET 200,000.00 200,000.00 : 200,000.00 241,568.62 241 ,568.62 181 ,288.00 70,1 00.35 70,100.35 43,979.00              ,o       ..             u 171,468.27 171,468.27 : 137,309.00 I Budget allocation 87,824.70 87,824.70 i 65,909.00 Minus credit from previous year 1.. ..... 25,485.69_ _ ....... 25,485.69 .. i15'989_00. . Equals NLRSD's share of the budget I 62,339.01 62,339.01 ! 49,920.00 PC SSD Budget allocation Minus credit from previous year 177,677.68 , 177,677.68 133,341.00 ....... 51 ,559.96 .. \\ ........ ?.:.:~~.~.:~ ........... ~~:~.~.:~ .. Equals PCSSD's share of th~_b u_d_g_et~1_ _1_ 26_,_1_1_7. 7_2--+-_126,_11_7.72~ ; _ 1_0_0_,9_9_3_o._o___. l I Int erest 0.00 I 10,554.71 ' 0.00 I I I I I To tal Revenue 707,071 .00 717,625.71 ! 580,538.00 No te: The sum of the credits in the above chart is the unspent amount of our previous year's budget, luding bank interest earned. Every budget cycle, QOM applies this amount toward each school trict's budgeted allocation. Both that allocation and the credit are determined for the proposed dget by the previous year's October 1 enrollment numbers, then adjusted accordingly when the rollment numbers for the current year become available. inc dis bu en EXPENDITURES 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET C ommunications 10,000.00 i 9,679.11 I 9,700.00 i 1 D ues and Fees 4,000.00 1,763.00 ; 439.00 I I E quipment 6,000.00 2,262.59 i 0.00 Fo od Services 200.00 212.89 ! 0.00 M anagement Services 20,000.00 2,350.00 : 5,000.00 ! p eriodicals 4so.oo I 301 .94 ' 80.00 ! p rinting \u0026amp; Binding 6,000.00 i 5,076.56 6,000.00 Pr of \u0026amp; Tech Services 6,500.00 j 1,655.00  1,700.00 R ent 46,231.00 \\ 46,230.96 47,896.00 I R epairs \u0026amp; Maintenance 1,000.00 379.73 : 400.00 I R I esource Library 200.00 ! 447.83 : 0.00 ! s alaries 469,296.00 443,296.24 i 410,770.00 B enefits 109,794.00 100,616.05 ; 91 ,166.00 ' , St aff Development 1,000.00 89.34 : 0.00 ! ' s upplies 7,750.00 7,067.09 6,643.00 , Tr avel 18,000.00 4,078.10 200.00 In surance 650.00 -197.00 544.00 T otal Expenditures 707,071.00 625,309.43 i 580,538.00 ANNOTATED ODM BUDGET FOR 2002-03 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor .... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis .... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be :rreconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring .... 10/1/01 % of Total 2002-03 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Allocation LRSD 25,367 I 47.64 1 1a1.2aa NLRSD 9,220 17.32 I 65,909 PCSSD 18,657 35.04 I 133,341 I 1 State of AR N/A I N/A I 200,000 Total 53,244 100.00 580,538 2001-02 Credit {Budget not spent)  I 43,979 ! 15,989 \\ 32,348 I N/A j 92,316 I 2002-03 Budget Payment 137,309 49,920 100,993 200,000 488,222 This chart shows that the 2002-03 Budget Allocation, the 2001-02 Credit, and the 2002-03 Budget Payment are apportioned among the three school districts according to last year's October enrollment numbers. After the final 2002-03 enrollment has been tallied, we will adjust the figures accordingly and notify each district of the exact amount due for its share of ODM's 2002-03 budget. Described below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the chart above. that we use to determine each district's contribution to the ODM budget: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of OD M's budget (minus the state's contribution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share ( or estimated share) of ODM' s unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contributes that sum to ODM' s budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified of the exact amount due for its share of ODM' s budget before the close of the current fiscal year. Page 3 EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or infonnation. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. I 2001--02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures i 2002-03 Budget i .__ 9,679.11 I s.100.00 I _____ ......._ ________ __._ ___ 10,000.00 Dues and F~es: Expendirures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. j 2001--02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures I 2002-03 Budget ! J._ __4_ ,o_o_o.o_o ....I.. _____1 _,_76_3_.o_o .i... _ ___ 439.oo I Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additional, and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. I 2001--02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures I I 6.000.00 i 2.262.ss I 2002--03 Budget ! I 0.00 j Food Services: Expenditures for fooci or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. I 2001--02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures I I 200.00 I 212.ss I 2002-03 Budget ! 0.0Q II I Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. ! 2001--02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures I 2002--03 Budget ; \\'--___2 0_o,oo_.o_o-'j- _____2 .3s_o.o_o-'l- ____s, ooo.oo ! Page4 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. I 2001-02 Budget ! 450.00 I 2001-02 Expenditures I 301 .94 I 1 i 2002-03 Budget ! ao.oo I I Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job pnntmg and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 2001-02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures ! 2002-03 Budget e.000.00 I s.076.56 I e.000.00 Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 2001-02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures 2002-03 Budget e.soo.oo I 1.6ss.oo 1,700.00 Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 2001-02 Budget / 2001-02 Expenditures I 46,231.00 I 46,230.96 I 2002-03 Budget ! 47.896.oo I Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 2001-02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures 1,000.00 379.73 I 2002-03 Budget I 400.00 i Resource Library: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. ' 2001-02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures i 200.00 447.83 I ! 2002-03 Budget ! I 0.00 ; I Page 5 Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 2001-02 Budget 2001-02 Expenditures 2002-03 Budget I 469,296.00 443,296.24 410,TTO.OO I Below is a breakdown of each employee's budgeted 2002-03 salarv Name of Employee 2001-02 Salary I 2002-03 Salary Ann Marshall 116,688.00 116,688.00 I Melissa Guldin 1 54,368.00 21,842.00 Gene Jones 2 57,021 .00 57,021 .00 Margie Powell 67,960.00 67,960.00 Horace Smith 67,960.00 67,960.00 r\"'011, -,ai':-.c, : I 51 ,011 .00 51,011 .00 Linda Bryant 28,288.00 28,288.00 Total 443,296.00 410,TTO.OO 1Melissa Guldin retired on September 30, 2002. 2Gene Jones, who works 4/5 time, elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 2001-02 Budget \\ 2001-02 Expenditures I 2002-03 Budget 109.794.oo 1 100.s1s.os I 91 .166.oo I Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's 2001-02 budgeted fringe benefits: Name ! Car Social I Retire- Hospital- Life I Dental I Hospital I I Short Total I Allowance Security ment -ization Ins. I Indemnity Term Benefits I Brown i 1.800.00 I 6,981 .88 Ii 14,218.56 2,253.12 44.16 I 238.56 : 60.96 1 62.88 25,660.12 Guldin ! 300.00 I 1,693.83 ! 1,667.04 563.28 11 .04 I 59.64 i 15.24 I 15.72 4,325.79 Jones i 960.00 4.435.55 l -0- -0- .o- I .o- I .o- I I -0- 5,395.55 Powell !; 1,200.00 s .290.14 I 82,99.20 2,253.12 44.16 i 238.56 60.96 \\ 62.88 I 17,449.62 i I Smith I I 62.88 ! I 1,200.00 5,290.74 I 8,299.20 2,253.12 44.16 238.56 60.96 ! 17,449.62 Ramer I 0.00 3,902.34 l 6,121.32 2,253.12 44.16 !i 238.56 60.96 I 1 62.88 12,683.34 Bryant ! 0.00 2,164.03 i ! I 3,394.56 2,253.12 27.60 II 238.56 60.96 j 62.88 8,201.71 Total I 5,460.00 29,759.11 I 41,999.88 11,828.88 215.28 I 1,252.44 320.04 I 330.12 91,165.75 Page 6 I ' I I I I I I ' i I ! I i Staff Development: Services performed by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. j 2001-02 Budget j I 1,000.00 I 2001-02 Expenditures I 2002-03 Budget I 89.34 ! 0.00 / I Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more compiex units or substances. \\ 2001-02 Budget \\ 2001-02 Expenditures j 2002-03 Budget ! I 7,750.00 I 1.001.09 I s.643.oo I Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business, such as parking fees. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. ! 2001-02 Budget I 2001-02 Expenditures i 2002-03 Budget , I I 18,000.00 j 4 ,078.10 j 200.00 I Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 2001-02 Budget \\ 2001-02 Expenditures ! 2002-03 Budget ! I 650.00 j (197.00) j I 544.00 ! Page7 EAsTMRG(f%5/2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ISTRJcT ARKfJSA.s EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANSAS Nov WESTERN DIVISION 2 5 20 02 -~:_MES W. McCORMACK, ~--- CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FF DEPCLERI( V. CASE NO. 4 : 82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL 'DISTRICT NO . 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . KATHERINE KNIGHT,, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 2 6 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS Motion for Recusal of Dis_tric\\ Judge  and .for Vacating of : Ord~rs., Rulings and -nidgments  The Joshu a Jntervenors. respectfully move for the entry of - orders providing for the recusal of the court (Hon . Wil l iam R. Wils.on, Jr.) and for the vacating of all orders , rulings and judgments, including the memorandum and j udgment of September 13 , 2002, e ntered subsequent to the reass i gnment of this case to t his court (Judge Wilson) . This motion is based upon 28 U. S . C,455(b) (2), Rule 60(b) (6), Fed . R. Civ. Pro., the follo~ing allegations, the decl aration of Robert Pressman , the affidavits of Rickey Hicks and John W. Walker , and the accompanying memorandum. 1 . On November 30, 1982, the Little Rock School District filed this case , Civil Action No . 82 - 866. The Honorable Henr y L . Woods was then assigned to handle the matter . 2. On March 23 , 1984 , the Court of Appeals for t he Eighth 1 - - - Circuit held that Judge Woods had erred, when he refused to allow the intervention in this case of class representatives of African American students in the LRSD , NLRSD, and the PCSSD (known thereafter as the \"Joshua Intervenors \" ). 3 . . On April 24, 1987, the LRSD moved for the recusal of Judge Woods pursuant to 28 U.S . C. 455a . Judge Woods denied this motion on April 30, 1987 (see 660 F . Supp. at 624). 4 . On April 30, 1987, Judge Woods also denied the Joshua Intervenors' motion for recusal based upon 28 U.S . C. 455(b) (2). See 660 F. Supp. At 636-37. 5. Employing the procedural device of a writ of mandamus, the LRSD on August 24, 1987 sought appellate review of Judge Woods' denial of its  recusal motion . The Jo.shua Intervenors pursued - appellate review of the denial of their recusal motion in an appeal addressing several district court judgments and by supporting the LRSD petition. 6 . Then in private practice, his honor, William R. Wilson , Jr . , was retained by Judge Woods to ~epresent the judge in the Court of Appeals with regard to the mandamus petition . See Attachment A. In representing Judge Woods, h.is honor served as a lawyer in this case. See Order Denying Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U. S . C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, Oct . 29, 2002, at 2 ( \" I entered the case, at that time , fo:r: the limited purpose of representing Judge Woods before t he Eigh t h Circuit i n connection with the request that he be disqualified . 11 [ emphasis added]) 2 7. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has construed 28 U.S.C. 455(b) (2) to require recusal of a judge in a case in which he or she served as a lawyer while in private practice. In construing 455(b) (2), this court has erred by limiting its focus to language in which the Court of Appeals considered whether (b) (2) might have an even broader scope, deciding that his honor's -involvement in 1987 did not fall within that possible additional prohibition. 8. A district judge has an independent responsibility to consider the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 455(b) (2). Upon receiving reassignment of this case, this court did not orally or in writing raise with the parties or rule upon the applicability of Section 455, in the light of his honor's earlier \"appearance in the .case\" - as a lawyer. Order, Oct . 29, 2002, at 4. 9 . Robert Pressman first learned of his honor's earlier role as a lawyer in this case on October 18, 2002 , while doing research on the matter of recusal; this research was prompted by Mr. Pressman's learning of the court's employment of Ms. Janet Pulliam as a law clerk. On October 22, 2 002, when reporting on this research to John W. Walker, Mr. Pressman also mentioned his rionor's earlier role in this case. Mr. Walker had forgotten the matter. See Declaration of Ropert Pressman (Attachment B) and Affidavit of John W. Walker (Attachment C)to this Motion. Attorney Rickey Hicks was not aware of his honor's earlier service until late October, 2002 (Attachment D) . The motion has been filed within a reasonable period ~fter the foregoing events. 3 10. In the 14-year period from the time that hi$ honor served as a lawyer in this case (November 6, 1987)until the reassignment of this case to his honor (January 3, 2002): (a) the Court of Appeals entered at least 13 published opinions in this case1 and the district court at least 5; 2 (b) the district court clerk's office docketed thousands of pleadings and other items in this case [see also Memorandum Opinion of September 13, 2002, at 9 n. 15 [-The pleadings in this case alone now occupy hundreds of feet of file space in the clerk ' s office. ' J (c) Judge Wright received approximately 743 exhibits; (d) the Office of Desegregation Monitorin~ submitted at least 49 written reports; ( e) Joshua Intervenors' lead counsel, John W. Walker, r~presented clients in many hundreds of other cases and discussed civil rights and other legal issues with thousands of persons who contacted his office. 11 . Implementation of 28 U.S . C. 455 requires that the court recuse . 12. In the circumstances of this case, governing legal standards require that the court vacate all orders , rulings and judgments entered s ubsequent to the court ' s receiving reassignment These decisions are 92 1 F . 2d 1371; 928 F . 2d 248; 949 F . 2d 253; 971 F . 2d 160 ; 17 F . 3d 260; 56 F. 3d 904; 60 F . 3d 435; 83 F . 3d 1014; 109 F . 3d 514; 112 F . 3d 953 ; 127 F . 3d 693; 131 F. 3d 1255; and 148 F . 3d 956 . 2 These decisions are 716 F. Supp. 1162; 726 F . Supp. 1544 ; 769 F . Supp . 1483 ; 769 F. Supp . 1491; a nd 778 F . Supp 1013! 4 . . , J - of the matter. Rule 60(b) (6) provides a vehicle for accomplishing this action. 13. The circumstances referred to in paragraph 12 include the following: (a) After the time that his honor represente' d Judge Woods in. . this case, Judge Woods expressed negative views on the fees for attorneys in the case, particularly the Joshua Intervenors. See 726 F. Supp. At 1554-56; 740 F. Supp at 634, 635; Judge Henry Woods and Beth Deere, 'Reflections on the Little Rock School Case 11 44 Ark. L. Rev. 971, 998, 1000, 1005-06 (1991). (b) In the opinion of September 13, 2002, this court drew upon (at 43) and built upon (at 38-44) Judge Woods' conclusion about attorneys ' fees, al though recognizing that the matter was ,'not - directly relevant to the issue of unitary status ... ' 1(at 40). (c) A neutral observer could reasonably construe this court's conclusions about attorneys fees pa.id to Joshua Intervenors to be that: the fees paid were excessive; the fees paid diminished the educational opportunities of the student .members of the intervening class; additional fees were sought when they should not have been; and additional fees were paid in exchange for an agreement to support the revised plan. (d) It is reasonable to conclude that Judge Woods' views about attorneys' fees in this case had a greater influence on this court, after receiving assignment of this case, . because his honor had earlier assumed an advocacy role for Judge Woods by representing him in this case. 5 r  (e) The Joshua Intervenors' evidentiary presentation in the July, 2 002 hearing was made principaly by lead counsel . John W. Walker. As of this time (or at least by the time of the release of the Memorandum Opinion), this court held negative views about Mr. Walker's earlier role in this case. See sub-paragraph (c). These vi~ws were linked to this court's earlier role as a lawyer in this case. See subparagraph (d). It was unfair and inappropriate for Intervenors' evidentiary presentation to be evaluat~d under this cloud. (f) On appeal,  this court's factual findings will be reviewed under the ~'clearly erroneous'' standard, not de nova. (g) The court's decision in this case is marked by fealty and deference to Judge Henry Woods, the individual whose positions this - court was obligated to champion, when serving as an attorney in this case. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that this court recuse from this case after vacating all orders, rulings and judgments, entered subsequent to the reassignment of this case to this court, including the Memorandum Opinion and judgment of September 13, 2002. The Joshua Intervenors further pray that this court refer this case to the chief judge for reassignment and grant such other and further relief as the needs of justic~ may require.- Respectfully subrr ted, Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862 - 1955 . 6 \\ ,' / ,)! .v?v/L /.{ I J n W. Wa!ker J[ n W. Walker, 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR / D~[ /IY. ~ /(JVg-1 P.A. 72206 Mass. 405900 /,J / . ~ f/   ,, i 'f---iL-zA~ I Lk/4 Rlcky .  ks Attorn ~y at Law 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663.-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been forwarded to all ~ounsel of record via United States mail, postage prepaid on this ~?--day of November, 2002. 7 !.A.=:l qD91'tG7\"TmRllSIXUT 'P. 0. IKll:11 urn.E:ROCK, AlllC.L'if54.S ,-2,.'\u0026gt;0;! Wl\u0026gt;C. ~ W!l$.ON,Jlll. t ~l'IID!=l\u0026gt;\u0026lt;-t aitOltANNllT. \"1II..'l0N c;.L'll/l).i;;Qllt.'1,( TJMar= O. lllml.2Y SQ1J!1S-\u0026amp;i~ September 8, 1987 RE: L~ttle Rock School Dist . . Petitioner, v. Honorabie Henry Woods, Respondent Eighth Circuit No. 87-2150 Mr- Robert D. St . Vrain Eighth CiJ:'cuit Clerk 511 U\".S. Court and Custom House 1114 Marke~ Street S~. Lou~s, Missouri 63101 Dear ~..r. Sc. Vrain: F. l L E D ----;J SP S 1987~ ROa.ERT D. ST. VRAiN. CLERK tl\u0026gt;LfJOADldtT'Tl!ll.0 ?!UC'TICZ l:'J AL..o.S~ EXPRESS MAIL I have just been retained by The Honorable Henry i.7oods to represent him in the referenced matter_ I.: is my understanding that our . response is due in the Eighth Circuit on or before . Septemb~r 14, 1987. If this is not correct, I would appreciate it if you .would advise me for'thwith. I understand, also, that this letter will suic:e as my \"entry of appearance.\" Again, if this is net: correct, please let me, know as soon 2.s pos.sible. Thank you very much for your consideration_ Cordially, fJ/t~ Wm_ R_ Wilson, Jr. WRWJr:skm. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 Declaration of Robert Pressman Robert Pressman declares as follows: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. I have undertaken various assignments in this case, at the request of John W. Walker, since the latter part of 1995. 2. On October 15, 2002, d~ring a telephone conversation, John W. Walker i11-formed me of this court's .employment of Ms. Janet Pulliam as a law clerk. He further stated that she had been one of the attorneys for the Little Rock School District in the first phase of this civil action. We discussed my doing research about recusal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455, in view of Ms. Pulliam's present and former roles. 3. I then did research at the law library of the New England School of Law in Boston on October 18, 2002. During the course of that work, I noticed in the United States Code Annotated a note on the decision in this case published at 833 F.2d 112. Upon opening 1 that volume to the two-page decision, I noted: William R. Wilsqn, Jr.; Little Rock, Ark. for Judge Woods in mandamus. This entry provided my first knowledge of his honor's involvement in this case while in private practice. 4. On October 22, 2002, I discussed the results of my research on Section 455 in the context of law clerks with Mr. Walker by telephone. I also mentioned the opinion showing his honor's representing Judge Woods on the mandamus issue in this case. At this point, Mr. Walker did not say directly or indirectly that he remembered this fact prior to my mentioning it. 5. A circumstance convinces me that Mr. Walker would have raised the matter of his honor's earlier role in this case had he remembered it. Prior to the July 2002 hearing, Mr. Walker and I had multiple conversations about _our prospects for success on the issues tried before Judge Wright and the is?ues to be tried before his honor. We both voiced pessimism, based upon our perceptions of his honor's record in civil rights  cases. In this light, my conclusion is that Mr. Walker would have at least raised for discussion on these occasions before the July 2002 hearing the matter of seeking recusal, if he had recalled his honor's earlier appearance in this case as counsel. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are truthful and complete. Date Robert Pressman 2 IN THE UNITED .STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL: DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE vv. KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER ~omes now the affiant who states as follows: 1. 2. I did not remember His Honor's appearance in this case in 1987 until some time in October 2002, when Bob Pressman mentioned it to me. Earlier in October 2002, I learned of the Court's employing Ms. Janet Pullium as a lawyer. I discussed this and its possible relatiQnship to recusal on separate occasions with Mr. Pressman and with Mr. Rickey Hicks as well as Ms. Joy Springer of my office. That discussion included no mention of His Honor's e:....rlier role in the case. 3. After the reassignment of this case to this Court, Mr. Pressman and I had several conversations about our prospects. We both had negative outlooks because of our view of the Court's decisions while on the bench. 4. There were other lawyers associated with this case who I did not remember until that memory was refreshed by my review of the pleadings and the decisions in this ATTACHMENTC case after the October 2002 conversations with Mr. Pressman, Mr. Hicks and Ms. Springer. 5. In the period from the time that His Honor represented Judge Woods in 1987 until this case was reassigned to His Honor, my law practice was very active. When.it was assigned to His Honor on January 3, 2002, I was preparing for major surgery. 11 Between 1987 and October 2002, I have represented clients in many htmdreds of other cases and have discussed civil rights and other issues with thousands of persons who contacted my office. . ? Affiant saith nothing fmiher. I COUNTY OF LL/\\ \"'16!~) ) STATE OR ARKANSAS) '): t\u0026amp; Sworn and appeared before me this d '(day of November. 2002. My Commission Expires: 9 \\ t 7; 200:2;; I i  ) ) \"-- 1 _,.. (Lo- _ 1 ) 11.--1-- ; r: / 171'\\( ) n f t . .{, ~ ( JJof.. ,,t( Notary 1fublic ATTACHMENTC IN THE lJNITED STATES DI~TRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL \"DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 AFFIDAVIT OF RICKEY HICKS Rickey Hicks states as follows: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORs  1. I began to _assist John W. Walker i1_1 the representation of the Joshua Intervenors on or about November 19, 2001. 2. In the latter part of October, 2002, John W. Walker and Robert Pressman discussed with me the fact that the court (Honorable William R. Wilson) had served as counsel in this case by representing Judge Henry Woods on a mandamus issue in 1987. This was the first time I heard or received any information about his honor's earlier service in this case. Affiant saith nothing further. coumY oF lno ILL ' STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) ) Sworn and appeared before me this J.J-day ofNovember, 2002. :. n /t1J1t,,r ;J_/(/I My Commission Expires: 1\" / /7/ZI uu3 r I r:A_u_/:(LE 0 ~ I ERN o,sf~(CT COURT  \"'CT ARKAiiiSAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nov 2 5 200') EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASJAM   WESTERN DIVISION By ES w. MccoRMA.  ---- CK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4: 82CV00866, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL -DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET . AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 2 6 2002  OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORIHG The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS Support of their Motion for the Vacating of Orders and Recusal This court has acknowledged that in 1987, while in private - practice, his honor appeared in this case as a lawyer. 1 Based upon the inter~retation of 28 U.S.C. 455(b) (2) by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, that circumstance disqualified his honor from serving later as a judge in this case. In the light of relevant facts and legal standards, the court should now recuse, after vacati_ng all orders, ruling~ and judgments entered since i receiving this case by reassignmeni. A. Under Eighth Circuit Decisions, A Judge Must Recuse When Assigned a Case In which He Earlier Served as a Lawyer The Joshua Intervenors read Eighth Circuit decisions as 1 See Order Denying Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 u.s.c. Sec. 455 to the Present Proceedings, Oct. 2~~ 2002, at 2 (\"I entered the case, at that time, .. \"); at 3 (\" ... my appearance fifteen years 'ago ... \"); at 4 (\" ... my appearance in the case ... \"). 1 interpreting 2.8 U.S.C.455(b) (2) to mandate recusal when a judge is assigned a case in which he earlier served as a lawyer. 2 The text on which intervenors rely is as follows. The trial of this case on the merits actually was delayed three years by various intervening motions, most of which are not relevant here. For example, motions for class cert if- ' i' ication and for consolidation with the Clark litigation concerning desegregation of the Little Rock School District (see Little Rock School Dist. No. 1, 584 F.Supp. 328, 334-35 (E.D.Ark. 1984), were denied, and those rulings are not challenged on appeal. Patterson does challenge the refusal of Judge Woods to recuse himself, arguing that recusal was required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b) (2) because Judge Woods' former law partner, during the time he was associated with the firm, represented parties that sought to intervene in and eventually participated as amicus curiae in the Clark litigation. We agree with Judge Woods that it follows from the denial of the consolidation motion that the  matter in controversy' here cannot be the same as in Clark and that the statutory language on recusal relied on by Patterson thus does not apply. Patterson v. Masem, 774 F.2d 251, 254 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added) We have previously held, in an appeal involving the same judge and the same connection with Clark, that where the trial court denies consolidation of a related case which might have provided a basis for recusal, 11  it follows ... that the  matter in controversy' here cannot be the same ... and that the statutory language on recusal . ... thus does not apply.\" Patterson v. Masem, 774 F.2d 251, 254 n. 2 (8thcir. 1985). Patterson involved an individual racial discrimination suit by an employee of LRSD, and the Joshua Intervenors urge us to distinguish Patterson on the ground that this case is intertwined with Clark in a way that Patterson was not. Under the Joshua Intervenors' interpretation, the matter in controversy' contemplated by the recusal statute may extend beyond the litigation conducted under the same docket number where the issues in the dispute are sufficiently related. Since this case inevitably involves consideration of desegregation within the LRSD  -- the focus of the Clark 2 . Sec. 455 (b) (2) reads in pertinent part: \"He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances ... (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy .... 11 2 litigation -- the Joshua Intervenors conclude that 455(b) (2) requires recusal. Even if we accept appellants' argument that different cases may constitute . the same matter in controversy, ' an interpretation apparently precluded by Patterson, .the question of what kinds of cases are sufficiently related for the purposes of Sec. 455 (b) (2) would remain a question of judgment . r  and degree. We cannot say that the trial judge I s former law t' partner's submission of an amicus. brief in a case involving, to a large extent, different issues and different remedies two decades ago ~equires recusal under Sec. 455(b) (2), nor do we believe that Congress intended such a result. LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1301-02 (8 th Cir. 1988) .... To determine whether 455(b) requires recusal in this case, I must decide whether the claims filed by Alaska fishermen in Apex's bankruptcy proceeding .as a result of the oil spill are the same  matter in controversy' as Artoc' s disputed claim for payment of the assigned invoices. We have previously noted that, if different cases may ever constitute the same matter in controversy for purposes of Sec. 455(b) (2), it is only when  the issues in dispute are sufficiently related. 1 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 839 F.2d 1296, 1302 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 ... (1988). In Re Apex Oil Co., 981 F.2d 302, 303-04 (8th cir. 1992) ( individual opinion of Judge Loken denying motion for disqualification) These three decisions c;::oncerning 455 (b) (2) touch upon two  ' situations. The first is where the earlier service as a . lawyer was in the same case to which the judge is later assigned. The second instance is where the earlier service as a lawyer was in a different case than the judge's current assignment, but, it is argued, the separate cases or issues are so closely related to the current assigned case that recusal is also required by Section 455 (b) (2). As to the first situation, Intervenor's interpretation of the 3 Eighth Circuit language is that the judge must recuse, if he\\she or a partner earlier served as a lawyer in the same case. As to the second situation, Intervenors' interpretation is that the Eighth Circuit has not made a . holding identifying a sufficient relationship, but has left open  the possibility that such a tl situation requiring Section 455(b) (2) recusal might exist. Intervenors' position regarding the Eighth Circuit standard finds support in United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 222533, (E.D. La.), at 8-9, relied upon by this court in its Order of October 29, - 2002, at 3-4. That court identified the Eighth Circuit rule as follows (emphasis added]: The court notes that the one circuit to have addressed the issue explicitly has read the  matter in controversy' requirement of Section 455(b) (2) narrowly. In Patterson v. Masem, 774 F.2d 251, 254 n. 2 (8th Cir. 1985) and Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. i, 839 F.2d 1296, 1301 (8thCir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 869 (i988), the Eighth circuit rejected the argument that \"the  matter in controversy' contemplated by the recusal statute may extend beyond the litigation conducted under the same docket number where the issues in dispute are sufficiently related.\" Little Rock School District, 839 F.2d at 1302. Thus, under Eighth Circuit law, the  matter in controversy' requirement is triggered only if the judge or his or her former partner worked on the case over which the judge is presently presiding.  In both Patterson and Little Rock  School District, the Court held that a judge was not required: to disqualify himself pursuant to Section 455(b) (2) when his former law partners had filed amicus curiae briefs in a case that helped 'form part of the historical background of the dispute' before the Court. Little Rock School District, 839 F.2d at 1301. In private practice, his honor had \"worked on the case\" reassigned to him upon Judge Wright's withdrawal. Recusal was 4 mandated under the Eighth Circuit's bright line rule. 3 Intervenors respectfully submit that this court erred in its ' application of 455(b) (2) in its October 29, 2002 Order. The court ignored the bright line rule; rather, its focus was on the appellate court's discussion of whether 455(b) (2) was even broader, ,, reaching some situations in which there was an overlap between different cases. The court ruled that its earlier involvement here did not fall  within the parameters of this \"standard. 11 This incomplete analysis yielded a faulty overall 'conclusion. The nature of school desegregation cases shows a problem with approaching the matter in terms of whether tha earlier service as counsel in the case involved \"any of the issues (now] pending before (the judge] \"Order, Oct. 29, 2002, at 4. This species of litigation may involve six \"Green factors, \" or even more elements, where, as here, the  parties' settlement is more expansive. The court's language might be interpreted to suggest that one could be an advocate in a case in private practice on some such issues, yet be able to later serve as a judge in the same case on others. Respectfully, \"we [do not] believe that Congress intended such a result.\" Little Rock School District, 839 F.2d at 1302. Finally, legislative history supports the interpretation of 455 (b) (2), adopted by the Eighth Circuit and urged here by 3 United states v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 1998), a criminal prosecution, cited in the October 29 Order at 3, was not a case in which the judge while in private practice, or a partner, had made an appearance in the current prosecution. 5 intervenors. Prior to 1974, 455 consisted of a single paragraph. In April 1973, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted for federal judges the American Bar Association's Code of Judicial Conduct. This code was ' more rigorous than Section 455. The 1974 revisions to 455 largely conformed the statute to the ABA Code ,, relating to judicial disqualification. The legislation did add 455 (b) (3) to deal explicitly with the issue of an individual coming to the bench from service as a government lawyer. The Senate and House reports contain this exp~~nation . ... subsection (b) (3) carries forward from subsection (b) (2) a required disqualification where the judge as a government lawyer, had acted as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding. In addition, the judge must disqualify himself where, as a  government lawyer, he had expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy ... See 197 4 U.S. Cong. Code \u0026amp; Adm in. News, 6351-56. B. His Honor Served in this Case as a Lawyer by Representing Judge Woods in the Court of Appeals in 1987 His honor has, as noted, acknowledged his service as a lawyer in this case while in private practice. See supra at n. 1. The I LRSD, however, seemin~ly suggests: that the petition for a writ of mandamus involved a different case -- by the repetitive use of the phrase \"the mandamus action.\" See LRSD Memorandum Brief, Oct. 30, 2002, at 3-5; see also at 4 (\"the mandamus case\"). Any such contention is without merit. The \"Petition for Writ of Mandamus\" employed here in 1987 was not a separate civil action or case, but instead a procedural mechanism used to bring an issue in the underlying litigation, this case, to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for review. 6 In Re Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 85 F. 3d 1353, 1355 (8th Cir. 1996) (petition for writ of mandamus seeking disqualification of district judge; court refers to \"basic underlying suit\" and the \"underlying suit\"; at 1355 and inn. 2); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d. 74, 76-77 (3rdCir . . 1996) (\"A writ of ,, mandamus, which is authorized by the All Writs Act, 28 u.s.c. Sec . 1651, . constitutes a procedural mechanism through which a court of appeals reviews a carefully circumscribed and discrete category of district court orders. 11 [footnotes and citations omitted]); United States v. Martin, 96 F.3d 853, 854 (7thCir. 1996) (\"When as is normally the case in the federaL courts mandamus is being sought against the judge presiding in the petitioner's case, - it is realistically a form of interlocutory appeal .... 11 ; \"It is a procedural step in the criminal litigation, like an interlocutory or final appeal or a civil contempt proceeding against a witness.\"); Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415, 417 (l0thCir. 1996) (\"A mandamus proceeding under section 1651, although characterized as an original proceeding, is not an independent grant of  ' jurisdiction, but an aid of appe,llate jurisdiction. 16 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure, Sec. 3932 (1977) (quotation omitted). As such, mandamus is part of the litigation of a case . \" ) . 4 In the 'Petition for Writ of Mandamus,' August 24, 1987, the LRSD recognized that the mandamus approach was a part of a single underlying case. At 5 ( ' seeking writ of mandamus directing Judge Woods '' to recuse himself from presiding over these proceedings . . . '' ( emphasis added) ; The LRSD supporting brief stated: '' This Petition seeks to have the Honorable Henry Woods disqualified from presiding over this scho~l desegregation case.\" 7 c. The Motion for Recusal Should Not Be Rejected as Untimely The motion should not, for two reasons, be denied as untimely. 1. The Court Had an Independent Obligation to Address the Matter of Recusal 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and (b) identify various situations in which a judge \"shall disqualify himself [or herself] .... 11 Unlike 28 U.S.C. 144, 455 is, not conditioned on a party's raising an issue of bias. Rather, in keeping with its text, Section 455 has been characterized as \"self-enforcing on the part of the judge.\" Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 517 F.2d 1044, .. .  . . 1052 (5th Cir. 1975). \"[I]f the judge sitting on a case is aware of grounds for recusal under Section 455, that judge has a duty to recuse him~elf or herself.\" United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9thCir. 1980). See also Roberts v . Bailar, 625 F.2d 125, 128 (6th Cir. 1980) (same); United States v. Davidson, 482 F.Supp. 8.27, 829 (W.D. Okla. 1979) (\"self-enforcing on the part of the judge\"); Bradley v. Milliken, 426 F.Supp. 929, 931 (E.D.Mich. 1977) ( 11 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 . places the issue of disqualification squarely upon the presiding judge.\") In fulfilling its \"duty,\" the court could have raised the matter here by describing his honor's prior-involvement in the case orally, or in writing, or by addressing it in an opinion. 5 In (at VII). See Attachment to this Memorandum. 5 Little Rock School District v. Arkansas Bd. of Educ., 902 F.2d 1289 (8thCir. 1990) (opinion by Judge Richard Arnold on whether he should recuse on several appeals); In Re National Union Fire Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1226, 1231 (7thCir. 1988) (\"The best practice is to disclose the details that the judge deems significant, to make a decision by one's own lights, and let 8 either case, the Joshua Intervenors would have been on notice of the matter and had the opportunity to address it, in the latter instance by seeking reconsideration (if the court had declined to recuse). The court did not, however, openly address the matter. 6 Intervenors' motion of October 25, 2002, sought a hearing on the recusal issue. Given the earlier silence on the matter, the motion asked that the court indicate whether upon assignment of the case his honor had considered his earlier role and, if so, the basis for his conclusion that 455(b) (2) did not require recusal. This did not seek an advisory opinion as later argued_ by LRSD, but instead the court's ruling or opinion on a matter it had a \"duty\" to address, the statute being self-executing. The court chose not to respond to these questions directly in its October 29 ruling. Nevertheless, it is our supposition from the content and the tone of that Order and the Order of November 12, 2002, that the court did recall its earlier service in this case as a lawyer, upon receiving this case by reassignment. On this supposition, which we do not, ;for multiple reasons, assert to be \"a lead pipe certainty,\" the failure of Joshua Intervenors to  raise the issue before the July hearing was the product, we respectfully counsel speak or keep silence as they will.\"); Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 867 F.2d 1415, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (district judge made prompt oral disclosure of facts and her decision that she need not recuse). 6 The ''Commentary\" to Canon 3(E) (1) of the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct provides: ' A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the que-stion of disqualification, even if the judge believes there 1s no real basis for dis~ alification.' 9 submit, of the court's silence, despite the self-executing nature of Section 455. 7 2. There Was Other Good Cause for Delay in Raising the Issue Joshua Intervenors did not raise the recusal issue before the July 2002 hearing. However, there is \"good cause\" for failing to - file at an earlier time. Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348, 1355 (8 t h Cir. 1992). Mr. Pressman and Mr. Hicks were not aware of the court's earlier role in this case until the latter part of October 2002. Mr. Walker had forgotten the matter; his memory was refreshed by Mr. Pressman's inquiry on October 22, 2002. 8 Objective bases render entirely reasonable Mr. Walker's sworn statement that he had - forgotten the court's earlier role. There was_ a tremendous level of activity in this case in the 14 year period between his honor's participation in the case in private practice and its reassignment to him in January 2002. Moreover, this activity was but one part of Mr. Walker's extensive practice. Furthermore, because Mr. Walker and Mr. Pressman were openly ;pessimistic about the prospects for success in his honor's court in their discussions before the July. 2002 hearing (see Pressman Declaration), it is unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Walker would not have at least raised the 7 Mr. Pressman was not aware of the court's prior role until stumbling upon this fact on October 18, 2002; and Mr. Walker did not recall it, until Mr. Pressman mentioned the point on October 22, 2002. See declaration and affidavit attached to the current motion. Mr. Hicks was unaware of this point until late October, 2002. Affidavit attached to motion.  8 See affidavits and .declaration attached to motion. 10 - possibility of seeking recusal for discussion, had he remembered his honor's earlier role in this case. See Motion, para. 10; Pressman Declaration, para. 5; Walker Aff., paras D. Prior to Recusing, th' e Court Should Vacate Orders, Rulings and Judgments Entered Since Receiving Assignment of the Case In Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 862-64 (1988), the Supreme Court addresses the question of remedies ~ where recusal is required. Although 455 defines the circumstances that mandate disqualification of federal judges, it neither prescribes nor prohibits any particular remedy for . a violation of that duty. Congress has wisely delegated to 'the judiciary the task of fashioning the remedies that will best serve the purpose of the legislation ... [~t 862] 455 does not, on its own, authorize the reopening of closed litigation. However, as respondent and the Court of Appeals recognized, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides a procedure whereby, in appropriate cases, a party may be relieved of a final judgment ... (at 863,footnote omitted) ..... we conclude that in determining whether a judgment should be vacated for a violation of 455(a), it is appropriate to consider the risk of injustice to the parties in the particular case, the ri~k that the denial of relief will produce injus~ice in other cases, and. the risk of undermining the publ_ic' s confidence . in the judicial process ... [at 864] Intervenors respectfully su}:)mit that application of these standards warrants vacating of all orders, rulings, and judgments subsequent to the reassignment of this case to his honor. Joshua Intervenors rely upon the factor of ~injustice to [a party} in the particular case,'' namely, these intervenors. Where, as here, a party appeals a district court judgment, the 11 factor of : injustice r: (or prejudice) to a party may depend upon the issue(s) which will be the subject of the appeal. If the appeal challenges the granting or denying of a motion for summary judgment, for example, the appellate court can likely address an ,'injustice, '1 the matter being subject to de novo review. Parker v. Connors Steel Company, _855 F.2d 1510, 1526 (11th Cir. 1988); In Re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F. 2d 764, 786,787 (3 r d Cir. 1992). In contrast, matters subject to only \"'deferential review\" on appeal _ are \"more problematic. 11 In Re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F. 2d at 787. The court's memorandum opinion of September 13, 2002 contains many pages of factual findings. While the appeal is at an early stage, it appears to Intervenors' counsel that it will involve a __ challenge to the correctness of some of the court's findings of fact, both those which are more specific and those which are summary in -nature. ( These contentions would be subject to \"' deferential review '1 ( In Re School Asbestos Litigation, 977 F. 2d 764, 787 (1992) .:. - the \"' clearly erroneous 11 standard. Lead counsel John W. Walker presented the vast bulk of intervenors evidence _before his : honor. This court viewed him through a particulai lens; it was an unfavorable image due to the court's perception of his role regarding attorney's fees. Moreover, it was a perception rooted in his honor's's earlier representation EXAMPLES: at 94(#22), at 100(#12), at 101 (#15,#16), at 102(#19), at 104 (#22), at 107(#27), at 108 (#28), at 126(#10), at 128(#13, at 129(#16), at 133(#24), at 143(#9), at 149(#19)~ 12 of Judge Woods, in this case, while in private. 10 This situation causes ~-injustice\" (Liljeberg) because findings of fact will be subject to only _a limited review on appeal. To be sure, Judge Woods and his honor criticized all attorneys regarding fees; however, the matter is of greater concern at  this stage for intervenors, as they had the burden of proof on the matter of compliance with the revised plan. Mem. Opinion, at 74. In this setting, the appropriate remedy is the vacating of all orders, rulings and judgments entered after reassignment of this case to his honor. Compare Preston v. United States, 923 F. 2d . 731, 734-36 (9 th Cir. 1991) (vacating judgment and remanding for ~retrial by a different judge~). Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 Respectfully submitted, J n 4):Shn W. Walker, 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046  ,,..,_ ____ r.,::_--1'-I\u0026gt;-'\"\"-._.\u0026lt;..-;_ Rickey: icks Attar ey at Law 1100 orth University-, Suite 240 Little Rock; AR 72207 501-663-9900 P.A. 72206 10 This paragraph relies on the facts set forth in the motion, para. 13. 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum has been forwarded to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on this \"\"]:'.2 day of November, 2002. 14 . I ~\\\\ i ~Ji i!i! i!1I{ _,~ .; :~ -. r -~,;,-~. .... : }, -.: :;.: t\\i [;~~[ j ~t}:i :/( ,.,::. :.\u0026gt;r:,~,t;.;itT'.~~:,c:::;;; :\u0026gt;\u0026gt;,\u0026gt;,\u0026lt;~-)-t:,,, ~-...... : ,. . . : : -: ;, . -~ .,.:..  --. ! : ,- : .  ~-.:~)f -4;_/ ., ;,::/-- n I g tJ  IN TBE UNITED STATE$ COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK. SCHOOL PIS'I'RIC'r APPELLEE vs. POLASKI . COUNTY SPECIAL SCSCiOL scaoot DISTRICT .NO, 1, et.. al. APPELLANTS) ) ) MRS . LORENE JOSHUA'  et. al. . ) ) INT\u0026amp;~VENORS) IN RE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER PET TT ION FOR WRI'.I' OF M.A.NDAJ.\\1US The above-named petition~r, the Little Rock School Di.strict , ~ ~ . herein applies for a writ of mandamus pursuant to Section 1651 of Title 28, United States Code (28 O.S.C. 1651) and Rule 211a) of tbe Fed~ra~ Rules of Appelfate Proced~re, ~ir~~t~d to. the ' !  Honorable Henry Woods, Jud~e of the United States District Court for th~ Eastern District of Arkansas, Wes~ern Division. In support cf this application~ tetitioner st~tes~ I. STATEMENT OF FACTS l. In July of 1986, petitioner submitted its faculty assignment plan for the Little Rock School District: to the district. court. (Pe~itioner's Exhibit parts cf r.~SD Pl~n J -1- II . STAT\u0026amp;~ENT  OF ISSUES PRESENTED 13. The petitioner filed its mot~on for the district . court to recuse . i tself on .P-_pri_l 22, 198 7 . The district court denied _ the motion on April 30 1 1987. pe-ti tion is whether the q.istrict court erre9 in fail lng to gr2.nt LR.SD' s moti-on .for recusal. tf ' :#\\j TII. REAS-ONS FOR GRANTING !(_EL TEF SOOGE'l' u  u f . -, ! r:- !1 .' 14. . The district court, by enga-g.ing in ex rerte communications, by commenting to the public and the press regarding the propriety of LRSD 1 s faculty assignment plan , by attempting to conduct its own discovery and consider evidence outside the record, and by sending letters and issuing orders stating that petition~r has violaied previous orders without hearing any evidence, has established the appearance of -impartiality in violation of ''28 O.S.C. 455(al and the Canons of -; Judicial Eihics, Canons l, 2: and 3 (A){4l . WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of mandamus be .issue.cl -by this cclirt directed to the Hono:rable Henry Woods, Judge cf the United St~tes District Court for the Eastern . I District of Arkans~s, West~rn :Division, to recuse himself , frorn presiding over these proceedings and for such further relief as tnis court des~s just ana proper. -5- - --------- _sT~I'.EMENT OF THE CASE The Proceedinqs Below This Petition seeks to have The Honorable Henry Woods disqu~lified from presiding over this school desegregation case. LRSD filed a Motion for the district court to Recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 45S(a), alleging that the district court had demonstrated the appearance of ~rejudice through his actions and extrajudicial comments in response to LRSD's faculty assignment plan. The district court denied LRSD's motion on April 30, 1987 . See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv s-oecia1 School District, No. LR-C_:_82-866 , (E.D . . Ark. April 30, 1987) (Order Denying Recusal} . Statement of Facts This protracted and complex school desegregation case ,,. began in 1982 when th_e LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors filed this action against the Pulaski County Special . School District ( \"PCSSD\" l and the North Little Rock Schoel District (\"NLRSD''l, claiming that ithey had failed in their i affirmative duty to desegregate their schools. Afte-e a long and complicated trial, the district court held that the PCSSD and NLRSD had indeed fallen short of their respective respor-sibilities to desegregate their schools and ' ordered that all three school districts be cqnsolidated. Liti:le vii lt\"Q . {!'4\" $J -i:: . sn.U:,-.,s,  01.s ~~ t;::D 1~-;:   Dis ; Hie:+- C(JuRr NO AR.ivwSA.s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJAMEs V 2 B 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: V\\! MccoR1, WESTERN DIVISION i-fACK, CLf:Rk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVED V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL .  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEC - 2 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR THE VACATING OF ORDERS AND RECUSAL The LRSD for its Response states: 1. Joshua's Motion should be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b). 2. The LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Response is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be denied; that the LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that the LRSD be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. F \\HOME\\FENOLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\umtary-rcsponse-mot-reclUc: wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FR1DA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501 - 11 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on November 26, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg.  200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F\\HOM.E\\FENDLEY\\LRSO 2001\\uniwy.response-mol-rccusc: wpd 3 - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - ----- -- ~#RG,(4,5D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT tsrR,cr~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Nov 2 6 \u0026amp;\\s WESTERN DIVISION JAME~ I, .. 2002 By .\\.. M\"r- ,, ,.., LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT -~ ).E~~IFF LJ;,;1::-c~ V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL OEC .. 2. 2002 . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL  DEFENDANTS Orf\\Ct Of MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ltatll\\r',.~\\TlOM MOMllORl1l\u0026amp; JNTER VENO RS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JNTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR THE VACATING OF ORDERS AND RECUSAL Joshua's Motion should be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b). Each of these grounds for denial will be discussed in tum below. A. It is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Herny Woods over a decade ago. The Eighth Circuit has consistently held that motions to disqualify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. I  455(a) and (b) must be filed in a timely m~er. Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir.1992)( claims under 28 U.S.C.  455 must be made in a timely manner); Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Homestake Mining Co., 722 F.2d 1407; 1414 (8th Cir.1983) (\"Although 455 does not include an explicit time limitation, we believe that a timeliness requirement is appropriate., ... \"}; United States v. Bauer, 19 F.3d 409, 414 (8th Cir.1994) (\"This court has held that claims under 455 'will not be considered unless timely made.' \") (quoting Holloway). Parties are required to apply for recusal \"at the earliest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating the basis for such a claim,\" Apple v. Jewish Hosp. \u0026amp; Medical - Ctr., 829 F.2d 326, 333 (2nd Cir.1987), for two reasons: ( 1) a prompt application affords the district judge an opportunity to assess its merits, and (2) a prompt application avoids the risk that a party is holding back a recusal motion as a fall-back position in the face of an adverse ruling. See In re International Business Machines Corp., 45 F.3d 641,643 (2nd Cir.1995); accord In re Cargill, Inc., 66 F.3d 1256, 1262-63 (1st Cir.1995) (\"In the real world, recusal motions are sometimes driven more by litigation strategies than by ethical concerns.\"); Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 799 F.2d 1464, 1472 (11th Cir.1986) (\"Counsel, knowing the facts claimed to support a . 455(a) recusal for appearance of partiality may not lie in wait, raising the recusal issue only after learning the court's ruling on the merits.\"), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1016, 107 S.Ct. 1893, 95 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987). The latter concern is particularly relevant in a long-standing case such as this. In affirming Judge Woods' decision not to disqualify himself, Judge Richard Arnold wrote: At the outset, we note the irony that most of the major parties to this litigation have at some point sought the removal of the trial judge. Not surprisingly, the parties have generally discovered grounds for disqualification at approximately the same times    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"tnn_npldl_crohpwilkinson11aclip1","title":"Excerpt 1 from oral history interview with DeLois Wilkinson, 2002 October 31","collection_id":"tnn_npldl","collection_title":"Nashville Public Library Digital Collections Portal: Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["Bennett, Kathy G.","James, Carolyn"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["Wilkinson, DeLois Jackson, 1924-2005"],"dc_date":["2002-10-31"],"dcterms_description":["An excerpt from an oral history interview with Nashville Civil Rights Movement participant DeLois Wilkinson, conducted on 31 October 2002 by Kathy G. Bennett as part of the Nashville Public Library's Civil Rights Oral History Project. Wilkinson discusses Nashville's role as a model for movements in the rest of the South, raising money to fund the Movement, social conditions in Nashville during the Movement, and the non-violence training provided by the Nashville Christian Leadership Council (NCLC), the local affiliate of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.   The complete interview, as well as a transcript, is available in the repository."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Excerpted from:  CROHPWilkinson audio cassette recording(s) converted to mp3 format in 2006.","Civil Rights Oral History Project, Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Nashville Christian Leadership Conference","African Americans--Social conditions","African Americans--Civil rights--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights workers--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights movements--Tennessee--Nashville","African Americans--Segregation--Tennessee--Nashville","Nashville (Tenn.)--Race relations","Nashville (Tenn.)--History"],"dcterms_title":["Excerpt 1 from oral history interview with DeLois Wilkinson, 2002 October 31"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Nashville Public Library (Tenn.). Special Collections Division"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.library.nashville.org/u?/nr,188"],"dcterms_temporal":["1950/1970"],"dcterms_rights_holder":["U.S. and international copyright laws protect this digital content. This image is provided for educational purposes only and may not be downloaded, reproduced, or distributed for any other purpose without written permission.  Please contact the Special Collections Division of the Nashville Public Library, 615 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee, 37219. Telephone (615) 862-5782."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview ; circa 2 min., 46 sec."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wilkinson, DeLois Jackson, 1924-2005--Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tnn_npldl_crohpwestfield11bclip1","title":"Excerpt 1 from oral history interview with Wallace Westfeldt, 2002 October 31","collection_id":"tnn_npldl","collection_title":"Nashville Public Library Digital Collections Portal: Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["Capps, Milt","James, Carolyn"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["Westfeldt, Wallace"],"dc_date":["2002-10-31"],"dcterms_description":["An excerpt from an oral history interview with Nashville Civil Rights Movement participant Wallace Westfeldt, conducted on 31 October 2002 by Milt Capps as part of the Nashville Public Library's Civil Rights Oral History Project. Westfeldt, a journalist, discusses how he came to cover Nashville's Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s for the Tennessean newspaper.  The complete interview, as well as a transcript, is available in the repository."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Excerpted from:  CROHPWestfeldt audio cassette recording(s) converted to mp3 format in 2006.","Civil Rights Oral History Project, Special Collections Division, Nashville Public Library."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Tennessean (Nashville, Tenn. : 1972)","African Americans--Social conditions","African Americans--Social conditions","African Americans--Civil rights--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights workers--Tennessee--Nashville","Civil rights movements--Tennessee--Nashville","African Americans--Segregation--Tennessee--Nashville","Orphanages--Tennessee--Nashville","Newspapers--Tennessee--Nashville","Journalism--Tennessee--Nashville","Newspaper publishing--Tennessee--Nashville","Reporters and reporting--Tennessee--Nashville","Nashville (Tenn.)--Race relations","Nashville (Tenn.)--History","Nashville (Tenn.)--Social conditions"],"dcterms_title":["Excerpt 1 from oral history interview with Wallace Westfeldt, 2002 October 31"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Nashville Public Library (Tenn.). Special Collections Division"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.library.nashville.org/u?/nr,222"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["U.S. and international copyright laws protect this digital content, which is provided for educational purposes only and may not be downloaded, reproduced, or distributed for any other purpose without written permission.  Please contact the Special Collections Division of the Nashville Public Library, 615 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee, 37219. Telephone (615) 862-5782."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["audio/mp3 (2.20 MB; 2 min., 24 sec.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Westfeldt, Wallace--Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_15","title":"Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, October 31, 2002","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2002-10-31"],"dcterms_description":["The student newsletter of Bethune-Cookman College, now Bethune-Cookman University, highlighting student voices, campus and community activities, and current events."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Campus life","College student newspapers and periodicals","Civil rights movements"],"dcterms_title":["Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, October 31, 2002"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/15"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16819","title":"Ernest Green interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Green, Ernest G. (Ernest Gideon), 1941-"],"dc_date":["2002-10-25"],"dcterms_description":["Interview discussing his memories of the desegregation of Central High School and Daisy Bates during Grif Stockly's research for the book Daisy Bates: Civil Rights Crusader from Arkansas."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas Women","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","African American women civil rights workers","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)--History"],"dcterms_title":["Ernest Green interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16819"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":["00:34:38","38,568 KB"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Green, Ernest G. (Ernest Gideon), 1941-","Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_23","title":"Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, October 10, 2002","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2002-10-10"],"dcterms_description":["The student newsletter of Bethune-Cookman College, now Bethune-Cookman University, highlighting student voices, campus and community activities, and current events."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Campus life","College student newspapers and periodicals","Civil rights movements"],"dcterms_title":["Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, October 10, 2002"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/23"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_r-0182","title":"Oral history interview with Robert R. Sampson, October 9, 2002","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Hornsby-Gutting, Angela","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198"],"dcterms_creator":["Sampson, Robert R."],"dc_date":["2002-10-09"],"dcterms_description":["At the time of this interview, Robert Sampson was running a pharmacy on East Market Street in Greensboro, North Carolina. Sampson describes how urban renewal in the late 1950s and early 1960s affected Greensboro's thriving black shopping district on Market Street. Sampson himself managed to stay ahead of redevelopment efforts, leaving areas destined for change for places he thought more secure. However, most black businesspeople did not expect renewal efforts or see them as inevitable; as a result, they lost their businesses and often found it impossible to rebuild or relocate. While Sampson concedes that the dilapidated buildings on Market Street needed work, he suspects that the choice to seize and redevelop, rather than fund remodeling, was an effort by white Greensboro to dissolve a successful black business district. The effort worked, silencing a lively area and greatly damaging black businesses. This interview provides a look at a black business community's struggle to maintain its coherence in a changing economic climate.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American businesspeople--North Carolina--Greensboro","African American pharmacists--North Carolina--Greensboro","African Americans--Commerce--North Carolina--Greensboro","Urban renewal--North Carolina--Greensboro","Greensboro (N.C.)--Economic conditions","African American neighborhoods--North Carolina--Greensboro","African Americans--North Carolina--Greensboro--Social life and customs","Segregation--North Carolina--Greensboro"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Robert R. Sampson, October 9, 2002"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/R-0182/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on June 13, 2008).","Interview participants: Robert R. Sampson, interviewee; Angela Hornsby, interviewer.","Duration: 00:45:17.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-CH digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Sampson, Robert R."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_cultural-landscape-of-georgia-overview","title":"Cultural Landscape of Georgia: Overview","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Lyon, Elizabeth A."],"dc_date":["2002-10-03"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article providing an overview of Georgia's cultural landscape. Georgia's cultural landscape is a product of the distinct history of the state, of what has been built, of what has been preserved, and of past and future developments. The ordinary, or vernacular, environment in which its people live, work, and play represents many layers of time and human activity. From the coastal settlements, marshes, and beaches through the sandy hills and wiregrass agricultural areas of middle Georgia to the sprawling cities of the Piedmont and the mountains of north Georgia, the diverse qualities of the natural and manmade environment are a fundamental part of the lives of all Georgians."],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["Georgia--Culture","Georgia--Civilization","Georgia--Intellectual life","Historic sites--Georgia","Transportation--Georgia","Architecture--Georgia","Civil rights--Georgia","Cherokee Indians--Georgia","African Americans--Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Cultural Landscape of Georgia: Overview"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/arts-culture/cultural-landscape-of-georgia-overview/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"Georgia's Cultural Landscape: Overview,\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_ku-klux-klan-in-the-reconstruction-era","title":"Ku Klux Klan in the Reconstruction Era","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Bryant, Jonathan M."],"dc_date":["2002-10-03"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia. From 1868 through the early 1870s the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) functioned as a loosely organized group of political and social terrorists. The Klan's goals included political defeat of the Republican Party and the maintenance of absolute white supremacy in response to newly gained civil and political rights by southern blacks after the Civil War (1861-65). They were more successful in achieving their political goals than they were with their social goals during the Reconstruction era.","GSE identifier: SS8H6"],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["Ku Klux Klan (1866-1869)","Georgia--Race relations--History--19th century","Racism--Georgia--History--19th century","White supremacy movements--Georgia--History--19th century","Reconstruction (U.S. history, 1865-1877)"],"dcterms_title":["Ku Klux Klan in the Reconstruction Era"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/ku-klux-klan-in-the-reconstruction-era/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"Ku Klux Klan: Reconstruction Era,\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1745","title":"Court filing concerning plaintiff's response to Joshua intervernor's request reconsideration and motion for new trial, Joshua intervernor's motion for relief concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for approval of middle school, other motions and memorandum attached.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filing concerning plaintiff's response to Joshua intervernor's request reconsideration and motion for new trial, Joshua intervernor's motion for relief concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for approval of middle school, other motions and memorandum attached."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1745"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["26 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' October 1, 2002, letter; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration and motion for new trial; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplement to motion; District Court, two orders; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' motion for relief concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' memorandum concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, motion for hearing regarding relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' motion to stay reduction of Office of Desegregation Management staff; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for hearing regarding the relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceeding; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for hearing regarding the relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceeding; District Court, order denying motion for hearing regarding relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * -PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * 4:82CV00866 u.fo1{k,~CQRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT O l 2002 JAME~~  l!:ly: ~ 2 - ,   . Defendants, * * RECEIVED MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., * lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * OCT - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Walker dated October 1, 2002. presume it should be treated as a motion of some kind. Accordingly other counsel of record may respond within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 1st day of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON GOCKET SHt'.:ET !N COMPLIANCE ~vv i1r.~i RMuLi::: 58 AND'C'R~ gr. RCF ,.,, ,,.., ,--.,(  ' - - - - - - v. ___ - 0 -- - - - - 6 8 0 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1 723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 3743758 FAX (501) 3744187 October 1, 2002 Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 I Re: Little Rock School v. Pulaski County School Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Judge Wilson: OCT - 2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EwuL: mchenryd@swbell.net On page 172 of your Order of September 13, 2002, you determine a compliance remedy with respect to the Joshua Intervenors, Section D. You also require the ODM to monitor LRSD's compliance with Section 2. 7.1. May I bring to your attention that the remedy being imposed is not preceded by any court order determining and defining the parameter of Joshua's monitoring. Those issues were not before the Court. The Court now determines that Joshua must monitor and must immediately bring to the LRSD 's attention all problems that are detected as the court has determined those problems to be. In doing so, the Court seems to impose a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I, therefore, would like to request that the Court define the nature of the monitoring that it expects ofJoshua, i.e. access to information by Little Rock, cost of production of such information, access to staff responsible for fulfilling the obligations (must this be done in writing with communication directed to LRSD counsel), and so forth. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua and the legal basis therefor in view of the fact that the remedy defined was not sought by LRSD or any party. I also note that LRSD is not required to inform Joshua of anything set forth on pages 170 through 1 72 except to provide a compliance report on or before March 15, 2004. I must also object to Court's imposing monitoring requirements upon Joshua that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM. The Court's comments indicate that it does not forsee or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit required. In this respect, we note that the Court created the ODM and expected the ODM to carefully monitor on a daily basis, full-time, the activities of the Little Rock Page 2- Letter to Judge Wilson October 1, 2002 and other school districts. By placing the responsibility that you appear to place on Joshua, unless clarification otherwise provides, the Court is shifting the required monitoring from the ODM to Joshua. We do not believe that to be fair or reasonable. Before your final order is entered, and becomes appealable, I respectfully request a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of ODM monitoring and Joshua monitoring may be fully developed. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall IN THE UN1TED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT - 8 .too2 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS OCTOBER 1, 2002 LETTER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS For its response to the Joshua Intervenors' (\"Joshua\") October 1, 2002 letter, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. For more than decade, Joshua has reported to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the District Court that it was engaged in the process of monitoring LRSD's compliance with LRSD's various desegregation obligations. At one oral argument, counsel for Joshua introduced a number of Joshua monitors to the panel of the Court of Appeals. 2. The 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan formalized a process for resolving any desegregation compliance problems which were discovered during the course of Joshua's monitoring. The obvious purpose of that process, which is found beginning at  8.2 of the Revised Plan, was to allow the quick resolution of any compliance issues for the benefit of both the - Joshua class members and the LRSD. 3. There is nothing on page 172 of the Court's September 13, 2002 Order which imposes upon the Joshua Intervenors any obligations which are not contained in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan or inherent in the class representatives' and class counsel's obligations to the class members. 4. The Court's September 13, 2002 Order followed weeks of litigation about issues which Joshua did not raise with the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. By requiring that Joshua and LRSD follow the \"process for raising compliance issues\" set forth in 8.2, et. film. of the Revised Plan, the Court is simply requiring the parties to abide by the terms of their own agreement. 5. TheLRSD can find in the Court's Order no basis for Joshua's argument that the Court has somehow imposed \"a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.\" The LRSD does not read the Court's Order as \"imposing\" any burden upon either Joshua or the ODM which did not exist for years prior to the Court's Order. 6. The Court should decline Joshua's request \"for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua.\" Nothing is required of Joshua that Joshua should not have been doing all along. The Court has simply let the parties know that in addition to 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, their agreement with respect to the resolution of compliance issues remains viable. The Court's Order continues a sensible and efficient system for resolving compliance issues and puts Joshua on notice that objections raised for the first time on April 15, 2004 which were not raised pursuant to the compliance process could be subject to an argument that those issues have been waived. 7. The Court should require that any future requests for relief submitted by Joshua should be placed in the form of a Motion and filed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's letter/motion of October 1, 2002 should be denied. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRJDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on October 7, 2002. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT - 8 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATIO.MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\") for its Response to Joshua Intervenor's (hereinafter \"Joshua\") Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial states: The LRSD will respond to each numbered paragraph of Joshua 's Motion for Reconsideration in tum. 1. The Court's use of the term \"supervision\" on page 2 its September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") was appropriate. It is common for a school district implementing a court ordered desegregation decree to be referred to as being under court \"supervision.\" See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S . 467, 471 (1992)(\"The DCSS has been subject to the supervision and jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia since 1969 . .. \" (emphasis supplied)). The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") acted under the authority of the Court to supervise the LRSD. 2. Evidence related to Joshua's failure to raise compliance issues during the term of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (hereinafter \"Revised Plan\") was relevant to the Board's good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Board 's estoppel defense. 3. The ODM works for the Court, and it is entirely appropriate for the Court to define its role and for the Court to take into account the LRSD's position with regard to ex parte contact between the Court and ODM. 4. Joshua cannot blame their failure to come forward with evidence on the Court's focus on \"brevity and substance.\" In any event, Joshua agreed to narrow the issues and the time limits imposed by the Court and cannot now be heard to complain. See Tr. Dec. 11 , 2001 , pp. 36-37. 5. The LRSD denies that footnote 15 on page 9 gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since 1982. The record is clear that Joshua intervened ' only after the LRSD prevailed in this case. While the 1989 Settlement Agreement did also resolve the Clark and Cooper cases, the Court is correct that this is a 20 year-old case. 6. The Court correctly noted that the claims for relief and remedies sought differ in the present case from Clark. Clark was simply a continuation of the Cooper case filed in 1956 asking that \"an injunction be issued against continued segregation of the races in the Little Rock public school system.\" Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 , 362 (8th Cir. 1957). The LRSD filed this case in 1982 seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts based on interdistrict constitutional violations by the other districts and the State of Arkansas. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The LRSD denies that either the late Honorable Henry Woods or Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon found that the LRSD continued to unlawfully discriminate against African-American students. 7. The LRSD denies that the information in footnote 47 on pages 26 and 27 is inaccurate. It is entirely appropriate for the Court to evaluate and comment on ODM's productivity. Nothing in the Court's opinion suggests that the Court has violated or intends to violate the Eighth Circuit's mandate. 8. The LRSD denies that the ODM has been in an \"advisory position to the LRSD\" since December 27, 1996. The ODM returned to its monitoring role at the conclusion of the 2 Revised Plan's transition period. See Revised Plan,  10. Nothing in the Court's opinion suggests that counsel for Joshua was to take over the ODM's monitoring responsibilities. Counsel for Joshua was obligated to monitor the LRSD based their ethical duty to their clients and their implied contractual duty to the LRSD. 9. The LRSD denies that the Court's discussion of Joshua's 1996 request for attorneys' fees indicates bias or hostility toward counsel for Joshua, implies collusion between the lawyers, suggests Judge Wright did not know the tenns of the settlement, complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties, suggests that Joshua's counsel agreed to assume the role of ODM, or holds counsel for Joshua to public contempt for being paid. As to counsel for Joshua's attempt to justify the monito.ring fees paid by the LRSD, the LRSD denies that counsel for Joshua attended \"hundreds of meetings\" with school District officials, that counsel for Joshua was ever \"threatened with arrest,\" and that the LRSD revised its policies because of counsels' \"persistence and vigor.\" The LRSD also denies the implication that - counsel for Joshua was responsible for the additional funding the three Pulaski County districts receive from the State by virtue of litigation related to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. While the discussion of professional fees is not directly related to the issues before the Court, the Court was free to include this discussion in its opinion. 10. The LRSD denies that the testimony ofDrs. Walberg and Armor was inapposite to the issues before this Court. Their testimony provides the context in which the LRSD and Joshua agreed to the Revised Plan and the basis on which the Court approved the Revised Plan, both of which are relevant to interpreting Revised Plan 2.7. 11 . The LRSD denies that there is no evidentiary basis for the Court's finding that ODM and Joshua did not object to the LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Bonnie Lesley testified to this fact (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001 , p. 287), and it is stated in the introduction to the LRSD's Final Compliance Report (CX 870, p. iv.). 3 12. The LRSD denies that the Court was required to share with the parties any criticisms it had of ODM's June 14, 2000, discipline report. The LRSD's Interim Compliance Report was admitted into evidence as CX 869. The LRSD denies that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection after the LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Linda Watson testified that ODM and Joshua were regularly provided copies of the District's Disciplinary Management Reports. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 83. 13. The Court is correct that Joshua failed to present any evidence that the LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement and school construction and closing. Joshua did not present any evidence on these issues:precisely because it abandoned those arguments. See Tr. Dec. 11, 2001 , pp. 36-37. Joshua cannot now be heard to complain that the Court did not allow Joshua to present evidence on those issues. 14. The Court found that Revised Plan  8.2 did not expressly require Joshua to raise compliance issues pursuant to the process set forth therein. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. Even so, evidence of Joshua's failure to raise compliance issues was relevant to the Board's good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Board's estoppel defense. The LRSD denies that there was \"much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators.\" 15. Footnote 2 of the Revised Plan is unambiguous, and the Court correctly interpreted the plain language of the footnote. The LRSD denies that Joshua introduced evidence \"that certain goals were to have been fully met while others would be ongoing.\" 16. The LRSD denies that the Court must presume \"that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts.\" The LRSD also denies that only conclusion to be drawn from any continuing racial disparity in achievement is that the beneficiaries of desegregation funding have been white students. Joshua's argument ignores the fact that the racial disparity in achievement exists when students arrive for their first day of 4 school. As Drs. Wal berg and Armor explained, it would be impossible for the LRSD to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement given the current racial disparity in socioeconomic status. 17. The LRSD denies that the Court improperly referred to the Green factors. The Revised Plan constituted an agreement voluntarily entered into by the LRSD. The LRSD entered into that agreement because it believed implementation of the Revised Plan was in the best interest of Afucan-American students, and indeed, all students in the District. 18. The Court is correct that in this case the LRSD has never been adjudicated a \"constitutional violator.\" The LRSD denies that it was held in contempt during the implementation of the 1990 settlement plan. 19. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2. 7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in achievement to establish the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan 2.7, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in achievement and the LRSD's alleged noncompliance. 20. The Court acknowledged that the Revised Plan did not expressly require Joshua to raise an issue pursuant to Revised Plan  8 before it could object to the LRSD's final report. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. 21. The LRSD will respond to each subparagraph of paragraph 21 in tum: (a) The Court drew a reasonable inference from the fact that Joshua failed to further pursue these issues and from Baker Kurrus's testimony that he asked Dr. Carnine to work with Joshua to resolve these issues. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 751. (b) Dr. Lacey so testified (Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 777), and no \"record of past actions\" is required for the Court to credit the testimony of a witness. ( c) Joshua points to nothing in the \"record\" which would indicate that the Court's characterization is erroneous. 5 (d) In fact, Junious Babbs testified that ODM and Joshua were provided copies of the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook.Court. See Tr. July 5, 2001, pp. 73, 77 and 78. Moreover, ODM's August 11 , 1999 report establishes that ODM received both. See pp. 39 and 40. Counsel's suggestion on cross-examination that Joshua did not receive them is not evidence. See Eight Circuit Model Jury Instructions (Civil) 1.02 (2001). Thus, the only evidence before the Court was testimony that ODM and Joshua did receive the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook. (e) The record in this case includes motions by the LRSD after Joshua filed its objections to stop counsel for Joshua from entering the offices of LRSD staff members unexpectedly and from using the Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA\") to conduct discovery. Joshua's opposition to these motions provides ample support in the record for the Court's finding. (f) The Revised Plan did not prohibit the LRSD from holding meetings without Joshua being present. Thus, there was no \"failure\" for the Court to excuse. (g) The Court correctly found that Revised Plan  2.5 did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. (h) The criticisms offered by the Court were readily apparent from the report itself, and Joshua cannot blame the Court for failing to put it on notice of these shortcomings. (i) The suspension index is a well-recognized statistic and has been explained in numerous desegregation cases. See, li, Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The Court was free to accept the LRSD's calculations which were admitted into evidence without objection. See CX 743 . (j) The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.5 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in discipline to establish the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  6 2.5, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in discipline and the LRSD's alleged noncompliance. (k) The Court correctly noted that not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against in the imposition of discipline. The LRSD fails to see how the Court's admonition not to present cumulative evidence prevented Joshua from calling any students to testify during the hearings on Revised Plan  2.5 . (I) The Court's description of Dr. Watson's testimony is accurate given the ' context in which the statement was made. (m) The fact that African-American teachers suspended African-American students more than white teachers is not \"a finding ofracial mistreatment by AfricanAmerican teachers toward African-American students.\" (n) The Court's statement that \"students of all races tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing and that they enjoy'' does not condone racial disparities in activities. ( o) The only inference to be drawn from testimony of Ray Gillespie is that the LRSD responded appropriately when confronted with allegations that white coaches mistreated African-American student athletes. (p) The Court did not accept a \"means\" test for participation in activities. The LRSD presented evidence of the steps it took to ensure that no student was denied participation in an activity due to a financial barrier, and Joshua came forward with no evidence that a single student was denied participation in an activity because of a financial barrier. ( q) The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in the percentage of students taking AP courses. The LRSD has worked hard to increase the number of African-American students in AP courses, and it has done 7 so. The LRSD's success cannot be diminished by Joshua characterizing the LRSD's efforts as \"minuscule.\" (r) The Court gave due weight to the testimony of Jason Mercer and Ramona Horton. (s) The Court did not accept a \"means\" test for participation in the University Studies Program at Hall High School. It is true that Dr. Lacey did not identify the race of the student for whom a private donation was sought so the student could participate in the University Studies Program. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 802. However, it was reasonable for the Court to infer that the student was African-American for two reasons. First, when counsel for Joshua began this series of questions, he limited the question to AfricanAmerican students. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 801. Second, there was evidence that African-American students were more likely to be poor, and therefore, to be excluded by financial barriers to activities. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 602 and 624. (t) (u) The Court gave due weight to Ms. Watson's testimony. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. (v) The Court may infer that counsel for Joshua read Revised Plan  2. 7 before agreeing to it, and therefore, knew what it required. (w) The Court is correct that Joshua did not raise the issue of the LRSD's March 19, 2001, agreement with the State of Arkansas in its Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status filed May 30, 2002. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion for Reconsideration; that Joshua's Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be denied; that the LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that the LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. 8 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\l..RSD 200 1\\unitary-rcsponsc-mot-rcconsider.wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRJDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37 -\"1LM-+---- 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on October 7, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\J-IOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001 \\uni1ary-rcsporuc-mot-rccoruidcr wpd 10 : - JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A't'TORNEY AT I.Aw 1723 l3RoADWAY Lrrru: RoCK, .AluWlsAS 7.2206 TE.t.EPRONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OFCOUNsEL ROBERT Mc~1.~ DONNAJ. M=t 8210 liENtll!RSON BaAn Ll1't1.P. Roel[, .AiKANSAS 72210 l'BONE: (601) 572-8426  FAX (501) 372,.8428 EMan.: mchen:ryd@nrbell.net Honorable William R.Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: Via Facsimile: 604-5149 October 9, 2002 Tius is a supplement to my letter motion of October 1,2002. I appreciate the Court treating it as a motion, although I did not so couch it, and I believe that the appropriate action taken by the Court in inviting the parties to react will be most useful. 1 believe that it is important for me to specify, however, what Joshua believes it would be appropriate for the Court to do with respect to clarifying the monitoring role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I am therefore asking that the Court conduct a hearing: ( a) to identify the instructions received by the Office of Desegregation. Monitoring (later referred as the ODM) regarding monitoring and reporting in reference to the LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status; (b) to consider whether the instructions received by the ODM were consistentmth the earlier identification ofODM's role as setfonh by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and ( c) to identify with greater particularity ODM' s monitoring and reporting role regarding the three school districts, If the Court is inclined to have me fonnalize my October 1, 2002 letter and today's letter in motion form, I will be happy to do so. I am also writing to observe that the Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration within the time allowed by law and that there has no response filed by either party within the rule time to our motion. Local Rule 7.2(b) requires that any party opposing our motion shall file such motion within eleven days. By my count, any opposing party should have filed its opposition not later th.an October 4, 2002. Today is obviously October 9, 2002. I am nor aware that the Court has a received a Motion to Extend the Time and I have not had a request from any counsel regarding an extension of such time. Page Two October 9, 2002 Accordmgly, we request that the Court role on the motion. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Brown i _-t.ttorne-; at Law 17ZJ Broadwcry Ltrrle Roa:; _4.J-!car..sr::s 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 .Fzc (501) 37-~ '.' 187 F/4,X TR.-4.L\"'iSlY.!ISSION CO\"y'ER SEEET Da:i2: [ To: [ Fa..-c: l __ 3. c-..\u0026lt;-2 ...... r- d)-.:-.LJ_c_JP __ __,1 Re: ,. l Sender: [_= =g,;===luY-==========; YOU SHOu2D R.ECE.TVE [_ _ (including cover sheer)] P.:!..GE(S), fl'ICLUDING l'F..JS CO VER. S,--:.r;;''f:T. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, P LE...:JSE CJ.LL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information coma.ineciin !his ~;mile meo:sage is atto:r-ey privilege:i and conficientfaJ. information intended only for the use of .b.e in.diviriual or en.rit-; nmned. above. If tile ruder of this m~sage is il.Ot tb.e intended recipient, or me ~ployee or agen, res-ponsibie to de.!iver it ro 1:le intended recipient, you sre b.ereoy .iotiiied ilint any cfuse:nination, di.'\"ll'founon or cop;1ing of cbis COIIlllluuication is stric:tiy prohiliii:ed. If you bave received. ihis commi'tni.c:icon in error, ple!:l!e immediate notify u.s by wlephoiie, md rerura the onginal messagi: .a J.l.:'J at the above address via .lie U.S. Postal s~:--lic:. Tilanic you. R CEIVED EAST~Rs~l~~e~~s s - CT 12 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 1 2002 AO 72A (Rev.8/82) OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. DES REGATION MONITORING By: __~ ~~~.,..,J... ..... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS On September 24, 2002, Joshua lntervenors (\"Joshua\") filed: (a) a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678), 1 which asks me to revisit many aspects of the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 3675) (\"Memorandum Opinion\") declaring the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to be unitary with regard to all aspects ofits operations under the Revised Plan (CX 871 ), except for 2.7.1; and (b) a Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order ( docket no. 3677). On October 7, 2002, LRSD filed a Response to Joshua Intervenors ' Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New 1On September 23, 2002, Joshua filed their first Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3676), which contained numerous errors. The next day, September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, which corrected most of those errors. I will consider this second motion as a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, although it was not so designated. As a matter of fact, a motion for reconsideration is not recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are, however, commonly filed and ruled upon in this jurisdiction--and I will hew to this custom. 3 6 8 4 AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Trial (docket no. 3682).2 After an initial review of Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial, I considered summarily denying both motions on the ground that each of the arguments in support of reconsideration or a new trial is without any apparent merit. I believe that my 17 4-page Memorandum Opinion fully and accurately sets forth the relevant history of this case and that my detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are amply supported by the record and controlling legal authority. In short, I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua believe I have erred, they should ~ppeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Thus, on the merits, Joshua's arguments raise nothing that warrants comment beyond my stating I find they are without any factual support or legal foundation. However, to the extent that a number of Joshua's arguments tend to torque the Memorandum Opinion out of shape, and are supported only by speculation and personal innuendo, I think it best to set the record straight. First, Joshua suggests that I improperly \"faulted\" Joshua for failing to present evidence 2Under Rule 7 .2(b) of the Local Rules, LRSD's Response to Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration was due eleven days from September 24, 2002, and its Response to Joshua's Motion for a New Trial was due eleven days from September 23, 2002. Because Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial were served on counsel for LRSD pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B) (mail) and (D) (electronic means), an additional three days must be added to LRSD's eleven days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Thus, LRSD had fourteen days to respond to those motions, making its Response to Joshua's Motion for New Trial due on or before October 7 and its Response to Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration due on or before October 8. As indicated previously, LRSD filed its Response to both those Motions on October 7. In a letter dated October 9, 2002, Joshua's counsel asked me to strike LRSD's Response to those two motions because it was not filed within eleven days. Because Joshua's counsel overlooked Fed. R. Civ. P. S(b) and 6( e ), they miscalculated the deadline for the filing of LRSD 's Response to be October 4. Therefore, their request to strike that Response is denied. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) on the March 19, 2001 Agreement between LRSD and the Arkansas Department of Education (CX 548). Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2. To the contrary, the Findings of Fact explicitly state that: The March 19, 2001 Agreement between the ADE and LRSD is unrelated to the question of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. It is important, too, that Joshua did not raise that issue as part ofits challenge to LRSD's request for an immediate declaration ofunitary status. Memorandum Opinion at 149, ,1 17 ( emphasis in original). Thus, although Joshua introduced CX 548 into evidence,3 I expressly did not consider it in deciding the unrelated question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligatio.ris under the Revised Plan. Nowhere in my Memorandum Opinion do I \"fault\" Joshua for failing to produce evidence regarding the March 19, 200 l Agreement between LRSD and ADE--a subject that clearly was not before me in the hearings on unitary status. Second, Joshua contends that I should not have addressed \"the involvement of the ODM with respect to issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson . . . [because] the competence of the ODM, the quality of the ODM reports, [and] the budget of the ODM .. . were not before the Court in evidentiary form .'\"' Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2, 6-7, and 10. The ODM, an employee of the district court, has monitored LRSD's compliance 3It strikes me as a little strange that Joshua introduced the March 19, 2001 Agreement into evidence during the hearing on unitary status and now argues, in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, that the document is irrelevant to the question of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. I agree that the document is irrelevant to the issue of substantial compliance, but this begs the question of why Joshua chose to introduce the document into evidence in the first place. I remain puzzled. 4For the record, my Memorandum Opinion does not consider \"the competence of the ODM.\" -3- A072A (Rev.8/82) with its obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1992 Desegregation Plan, and the Revised Plan. Because the ODM works for the court, all of its budgets, as well as all of the reports it has prepared over the years, have been filed and are part of the record in this case. Historically, all of the parties and the court have used ODM reports, to the extent they were relevant, during the many hearings that have taken place since 1991. After being assigned this case in January of 2002, I carefully reviewed the entire record. In doing so, I examined the ODM 's annual budgets from 1990 to date. I was troubled by the large increases in the OD M's budget over that period of time. I was also troubled by the large sums of money that I discovered had been paid to the attorneys for both Joshua and the three school di stricts.5 While attorneys are unquestionably necessary in school desegregation cases, it is the school children who ultimately are disadvantaged by unnecessary or exorbitantly high litigation costs. Thus, I believe that it was entirely appropriate for me to express my views on the ODM's rapidly escalating budgets,6 which are part of the record in this case, and the total amount of money that has been paid to all of the attorneys in this case during the last ten to fifteen years. As footnote 58 makes clear, my concern is with the enormous amount of money that has been paid to the entire professional group--the ODM, the attorneys for LRSD, PCS SD, NLRSD, and Joshua. As I thought my admonition made clear on page 44 of the Memorandum Opinion, I believe the issue of the money paid to the professional group is important because \"I understand the meaning of being careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that 51n most long-running school desegregation cases that have been decided in the last ten years, courts have expressed dismay over the high cost of school litigation. I now know why. 6See Memorandum Opinion at 26-27. -4- A072A (Rev.8/82_) _ important point fixed in their minds from here on out.\" Why Joshua's counsel seriously contend that I should not have addressed a subject of such obvious importance is beyond me. In the same vein, Joshua's counsel argue that I should not have commented on the quality of the ODM's June 14, 2000 Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD (docket no. 3366). Joshua's counsel used that Report extensively in his examination of various LRSD employees who testified during the hearings on unitary status. Joshua's decision to use that Report, one of the Court 's own documents, in his examination of witnesses on the issue of student discipline, required me to read and carefully analyze that do~ument. In doing so, I discovered patent deficiencies which rendered the Report of little use to the court or the parties in trying to determine the cause for African-American students being over-represented in disciplinary proceedings. Thus, in my discussion of the history of this litigation (Memorandum Opinion at 47-50), I was obliged to point out the flaws in the ODM's Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. I note that Joshua does not deny those flaws--they simply object to my noting them. In my Findings of Fact on the issue of student discipline, I again commented on the OD M's Report of Disciplinary Sanctions, which was prepared for the express purpose of being used by the court in monitoring and evaluating LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. In light of that fact, I believe I would have been remiss ifI had not closely scrutinfaed the ODM's Report in deciding whether LRSD had substantially complied with those sections of the Revised Plan dealing with student discipline. Otherwise, what is the role of the Judge? Finally, and perhaps most importantly on this point, none of my Findings of Fact on the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations regarding student discipline were based on anything contained in the OD M's Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. Rather, my -5- AO 72A (Rev.8/82 findings simply pointed out that, because the Report failed to develop a proper statistical model for evaluating the data on student discipline, its conclusions were based on pure speculation-making the Report of no use to the court or the parties in evaluating the cause for AfricanAmerican students in LRSD receiving a disproportionate number of suspensions. See Memorandum Opinion at 105-07, ,i,i 24-26. Third, Joshua's counsel take general exception to my discussion of the attorneys' fees that have been paid in this case during the last twenty years and particular exception to my allegedly erroneous finding \"that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time.\" Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 3. The amount that Joshua's counsel have been paid, to date, in attorneys ' fees is a matter of public record. As pointed out in footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, these attorneys' fees are as follows: $3,150,000 paid to Joshua's counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement;7 $700,000 paid by LRSD to Joshua's counsel for monitoring work performed after December 12, 1990, and before July 1, 1998 (see Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581 ); and $124,861 paid by LRSD to Joshua's counsel for monitoring work performed under the Revised Plan between July 1, 1998, and January 2001 (see Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581 ). Thus, based entirely on the evidence in the record, without any need for me to speculate or make assumptions, Joshua's counsel have been paid, to date, $3,974,861 in attorneys' fees--this is more than $3,750,000. In footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, I hazard what I admit to be a \"guess\" that, since 1990, the attorneys ' fees that LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD have paid to their own attorneys 7LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1390 (8th Cir. 1990). -6- AO 72A - ~(Rev.8/82) \"totals at least $4,000,000.\" Joshua's counsel clearly lack standing to complain about my \"guess\" regarding the aggregate amount of attorneys ' fees paid to counsel for the three school districts--an estimate that LRSD has not challenged. In light of these undisputed facts, I seriously question how Joshua's counsel can make the statement that \"counsel Walker does not accept the court's conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case.\" Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 9. With all due respect to Mr. Walker, I am having a hard time escaping the conclusion that he has been \"directly benefitted\" by receiving millions of dollars in attorneys' fees in this case. Fourth, Joshua's counsel, without citing any supporting facts, accuse me of \"a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the role oflawyers in this long-standing case\";8 \"negative attitudes toward lawyers who are involved with and associated with this case\";9 and \"a bias or hostility toward Joshua's counsel.\"10 Although this should go without saying, I want to remind Joshua's counsel that, while I ruled against them on five of the six arguments they advanced, this does not mean that I harbor any bias against or hostility toward them. 11 For the record, I have no \"predispositions,\" \"negative attitudes,\" or \"bias or hostility\" toward Joshua's counsel. I did indeed express dismay over the attorneys' fees that have been paid to all of the 8Motion for Reconsideration at 2. 9Motion for Reconsideration at 3. 10Motion for Reconsideration at 7. 11\"The Judge must not like me\" is a refrain usually sung by lawyers who have just been called to the bar--when a lawsuit doesn't tum out exactly as they had wanted. Experienced lawyers generally resist the temptation to raise this claim. -7- A072A (Rev.8/82) attorneys in this case--! believe that was a subject that called for comment during my discussion of the long history of this case. Likewise, the concerns I expressed about LRSD's decision to pay Joshua's counsel $700,000 for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright ruled Joshua's counsel had already been paid ( docket no. 2821) and the $48,333.33 per year that LRSD agreed to pay Joshua's counsel for performing monitoring work under the Revised Plan are directly supported by detailed citations to the record 12--not speculation or conjecture--and also deserved to be mentioned in my review of the history of this case. As I stated in the Memorandum Opinion, counsel for both LRSD an,d Joshua should have done a better job of documenting the reasons for the payment of these attorneys' fees and the precise role of Joshua's counsel in receiving monthly payments from LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan. However, in reaching that conclusion, I was guided entirely by the plain facts contained in the record and not by any \"preconceived ideas\" or a \"bias or hostility toward Joshua's counsel.\" Fifth, Joshua argues that: (a) because I discuss the fact that the OD M's staff and budget have more than doubled since its creation, I am implicitly criticizing \"Judge Wright's actions and the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place\"; 13 (b) I \"may be I signaling that [I] want to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the Eighth Circuit\"; 14 and ( c) I may be trying to infer that \"Joshua take over the roie of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year.\" 15 No one could fairly read the 12See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. 13Motion for Reconsideration at 6. 14Motion for Reconsideration at 7. 15Motion for Reconsideration at 7. -8- A072A (Rev.8/82) Memorandum Opinion as stating anything within shouting distance of these three farfetched notions. As I repeatedly noted in my Memorandum Opinion, Judge Wright did an outstandingjob of presiding over this case for eleven long years, during which time she faithfully and skillfully decided well over a thousand motions. Nowhere do I implicitly or explicitly direct any criticism toward her. 16 Likewise, my Memorandum Opinion makes it clear that I believe it was a good idea for the Eighth Circuit to create the ODM so that the district court and the Eighth Circuit could ensure \\. that each of the three school districts complied with their many desegregation obligations. Obviously, it is important for the ODM to continue its monitoring work until each of the three school districts is declared to be unitary and released from further supervision by the court. At this point, my only concern is that the ODM operate as frugally and efficiently as possible in going forward with its monitoring of the now much less onerous single remaining compliance issue for LRSD and the desegregation obligations that remain in effect for NLRSD and PCS SD. Finally, Joshua's counsel are absolutely correct that, in my Memorandum Opinion, there \"surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was [to] take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year ... . \" There is no such \"inference\" or \"implication.\" Sixth, Joshua argues that they should be allowed to present additional evidence ofLRSD' s alleged noncompliance with other sections of the Revised Plan. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 10-11. In support of this argument, Joshua alleges that \"the court previously 161 do not understand how counsel can possibly discern (or divine) any such criticism in the Memorandum. -9- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence [on LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing].\" This is not true. It is an after-the-fact assertion. On May 9, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3598) explaining in detail how I intended to proceed in conducting up to five days of hearings on the remaining issues Joshua had raised in their challenge to LRSD's request for unitary status. Four pages of that Order were devoted to discussing what transpired during the December l l., 2001 hearing before Judge Wright, which was held to discuss the remaining grounds for Joshua's challenge to LRSD's substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Id. at 9-12. The May 9 Order pointed out that, during the December 11 hearing, Joshua's counsel attempted to raise numerous new grounds for challenging LRSD 's alleged noncompliance after they had rested their case on what they viewed as their three strongest grounds--lack of good faith, failure to comply with obligations related to AfricanAmerican achievement, and student discipline. Judge Wright ruled that Joshua could present evidence on three remaining grounds for noncompliance: advanced placement courses; guidance counseling; and extracurricular activities. In addition, she ruled Joshua could present additional evidence of LRSD's alleged lack of good faith, but only to the extent that evidence was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. Judge Wright also made it clear that, after she had heard the evidence on these three remaining areas of alleged noncompliance, she would decide the question of unitary status. Joshua's counsel responded: \"That 's fin e, Your Honor.\" (Docket no. 3597 at 36-37.) Consistent with Judge Wright's ruling during the December 11 , 2001 hearing, the May 9 -10- A072A (Rev.8/82) Order provided that I planned to conduct up to five days of additional hearings on unitary status, during which Joshua would be allowed to present evidence of LRSD's alleged noncompliance with its obligations related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. In addition, I allowed Joshua to present noncumulative evidence related to: (a) LRSD's lack of good faith, but only to the extent that it was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities; and (b) how LRSD 's alleged failure to comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities adversely affected the aca~emic achievement of African-American students (docket no. 3598 at 13-14). I hardly see how the May 9 Order could have been any clearer in setting forth the precise ground rules regarding Joshua's three remaining challenges to LRSD's substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Joshua's counsel raised no objection to the May 9 Order, and, after completing three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22-24, 2002, Joshua's counsel rested their case challenging whether LRSD should be declared unitary. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for Joshua's counsel to argue that the court \"instructed\" them not to present evidence ofLRSD 's alleged noncompliance with numerous other provisions of the Revised Plan. Joshua's counsel agreed, flat footedly, to the ground rules for conducting the hearings on unitary status, including the six specific areas of the Revised Plan under which they challenged LRSD's substantial compliance. It is far too late for Joshua to argue that they should be allowed to engage in piecemeal litigation by raising additional grounds for attacking LRSD's substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Again--one last time--the grounds delineated by Judge Wright and me, and agreed to by all counsel, were fully litigated. -11- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) I do not know how to put it any more plainly than that. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joshua's Motion for a New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be and it is hereby DENIED. nf DATED this day // of October, 2002. -12- /)J v_J ~ . ~ L!l UNITED STATES DISTRICTJU~ THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH tULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRC ON 10 I 1 / o 2.. BY D ~VI , () AO 72A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVEf OCT 1 2 2002 OFRCE GfSEGREGATtnN ;\\\\'.: lilTGRING EAsrM~l~~gl!2b IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 1 2002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. Mc By: A K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS In a letter dated and delivered to me on October 1, 2002, counsel for Joshua requested that I modify or clarify: ( a) various aspects of the compliance remedy contained in the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (the \"Memorandum Opinion\") declaring LRSD to be partially unitary; and (b) the role of Joshua and the ODM in performing future monitoring work in this case. Later that day, I entered an Order ( docket no. 3680), stating that I intended to :treat the letter as \"a motion of some kind.\"1 In a letter dated October 9, 2002, counsel for Joshua wrote me a \"supplement\" to their October 1, 2002 letter. Attached to this Order is a copy of the October 9 letter. On October 7, 2002, LRSD filed its Response to Joshua's October 1, 2002 letter (docket no. 3681 ). Because I see no reason to await LRSD's Response to the matters raised in Joshua's 1A copy of the October 1 letter is attached to my Ord~r. A072A (Rev.8/82) October 9 letter, I will proceed to address the merits of the reliefrequested by Joshua's counsel in both of those letters. As a threshold matter, I want to clarify how I view these two letters. On September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678) requesting that I clarify or modify many aspects of the Memorandum Opinion. Because both of Joshua's letters are seeking reconsideration of still other aspects of the Memorandum Opinion, I will treat those letters as a \"Supplement\" to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and address in this Order only those arguments raised in that \"Supplement.\"2 In the future, I think it will be best if all counsel file motions--not letters--raising any issues that they believe require my attention. I should not be copied on general correspondence amongst counsel. First, Joshua's counsel request that I clarify the monitoring obligations the Memorandum Opinion imposed on them with regard to LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. I shall do so. In 1990, Joshua's counsel made the commitment to participate in a monitoring system to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCS SD complied with their desegregation obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. See Memorandum Opinion at 34. Later, in approving that Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that counsel for Joshua were \"the best  defenders and guardians of the interests of their own clients.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990). Between 1990 and 1998, Joshua's counsel participated in monitoring 2In a companion Order that I am entering contemporaneously with this Order, I have addressed and rejected the arguments raised by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) LRSD's compliance with the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1992 Desegregation Plan.3 After Joshua and LRSD implemented the Revised Plan in 1998, Joshua's counsel entered into an agreement with LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan, a task for which LRSD agreed to pay Joshua's counsel $48,333.33 per year.4 Thus, for the last twelve years, Joshua's counsel have been involved with monitoring LRSD's compliance with its desegregation obligations . . In Section VII.A., B., and C. of the Memorandum Opinion, I outlined the Compliance Remedy LRSD must implement in order to comply with its remaining obligations under  2. 7. l of the Revised Plan. Because I believe that Joshua's counsel have an ethical obligation and professional duty to monitor LRSD's compliance with its obligations under  2. 7. l , I provided a monitoring role for them in Section VII.D of the Memorandum Opinion. I intended for Joshua's counsel to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case. One could read the October 1, 2002 letter as suggesting that Joshua's counsel only intend to continue to monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan if they are ordered to do so by me. I do not believe I can force Joshua's counsel to perform monitoring duties--something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to continue to do. I will leave it up to Joshua's counsel to decide if they have an ethical duty and professional obligation to 3Judge Wright ruled Joshua's counsel were not entitled to receive attorney's fees for any monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuit's approval of the 1990 Settlement Agreement (docket no. 2821). While that ruling was on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, LRSD voluntarily agreed to pay Joshua's counsel $700,000 forperformingthatmonitoringwork. See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. 4See Memorandum Opinion at 42. -3- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) continue monitoring LRSD's compliance with its sole remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. I hope Joshua's counsel resolve that question in favor of continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSD's compliance with its desegregation obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directing them to continue monitoring LRSD's compliance with  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan--something I never expected to hear--I believe I must now modify Section VII.D. of the Memorandum Opinion to read as follows: Joshua may monitor LRSD 's compliance with  2. 7 .1 and, if they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention of LRSD, on a timely basis, all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Complianc'f: Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"process for raising corripliance issues\" set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua shall present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Regardless of whether Joshua's counsel continue to monitor LRSD's compliance with  2. 7 .1, the ODM staff most certainly will continue their close monitoring ofLRSD 's compliance with that section of the Revi_sed Plan. I have every confidence that the staff of the ODM will carefully monitor LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy I have ordered under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. If Joshua's counsel decide to continue with their monitoring role, which is independent from the monitoring work performed by the ODM, the preceding paragraphs of this Order make it clear that I expect them to follow the same monitoring practices they have followed for years in this case. I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSD's implementation of its obligations under  2. 7 .1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, I will be available to resolve them. -4- A072A (Aev.8/82) Second, Joshua's counsel makes an unsupportable and speculative statement that certain unspecified\"comments\" in the Memorandum Opinion \"indicated that [I] do not foresee orrequire a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit required.\" This assertion simply is not true. I will expect and require the ODM staff to work hard every day to ensure that all three school districts fully comply with all of their remaining desegregation obligations. Of course, for LRSD, these obligations are now far less onerous than they have been in the past. Likewise, NLRSD has already been declared unitary with regard to several ofits original desegregation obligations. In other words, while I will expect ' and require the ODM staff to diligently and fully discharge their obligation to monitor the three school districts, the reality is they now have far fewer obligations. Finally, in Joshua's counsel's October 9, 2002 letter, they request that I conduct a hearing to clarify the role of the ODM. I find there is no need for any requested clarification of the role of the ODM--much less for a hearing on that subject. I feature myself capable of directing the ODM staff in performing their ongoing duties as monitors. IfI waiver in this belief, I may, at that time, call on counsel for suggestions. Of course, if Joshua's counsel determines that the ODM staff is not adequately discharging its monitoring duties, I would expect them to immediately file an appropriate motion. In closing, let me repeat the comment I made in my companion Order addressing the merits of the arguments made by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration: \"I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua or LRSD believe that I have erred, they should appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.\" No more paper should -5- A072A (Rev.8/82) be wasted in asking me to reconsider aspects of my September 13 Memorandum Opinion or to clarify roles or responsibilities associated with the Compliance Remedy. That's myrulin'. If any party perceives error, that party should get its best hold and go to the Eighth Circuit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshua's Supplement to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Section VI.D. of the Memorandum Opinion is modified to read as set forth, supra, at 4. TM DATED this day / ( of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ ON IO '\" l Q-Z... gy_j-\"\"'-=;~,,,__,_~- -6- JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Honorable William R.Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 l3RaADWAY Lrrru: RoCK, .Aluw.SAS 7.2206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile: 604-SJ 49 October 9, 2002 0FCOtlNsEL ROBERT M~,'!..~ DONNAJ.M=r 8210 liENi\u0026gt;KRSON Ra.\\n Ll'rrl.P. Ro~ AIKANSAs 72210 PHONE: (501) 872-8426  FAX (501) 372-8428 EMAn.: mcliemyd@s1rbell.net Tiris is a supplement to my letter motion of October 1,2002. I appreciate the Court treating it as a motion, although I did not so couch it, and I believe that the appropriate action taken by the Court in inviting the parties to react will be most useful. I believe that it is important for me to specify, however, what Joshua believes it would be appropriate for the Court to do with respect to clarifying the monitoring role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I am therefore asking that the Court conduct a hearing: (a) to identify the instructions received by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (later referred as the ODM) regarding monitoring and reporting in reference to the LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status; (b) to consider whether the instructions received by the ODM were consistent with the earlier identification of ODM' s role as set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and ( c) to identify with greater particularity ODM' s monitoring and reporting role regarding the three school districts, If the Court is inclined to have me formalize my October 1, 2002 letter and today's letter in motion fonn, I will be happy to do so. I am also writing to observe that the Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration within the time allowed by law and that there has no response filed by either party within the rule time to our motion. Local Rule 7.2(b) requires that any party opposing our motion shall file such motion within eleven days. By my count, any opposing party should have filed its opposition not later than October 4, 2002. Today is obviously October 9, 2002. I am not aware that the Court has a received a Motion to Extend the Time and I have not had a request from any counsel regarding an extension of such time. Page Two October 9, 2002 Accordmgly, we request that the Court role on the motion. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Brown .!!.trorne\"J at Law 17:Z3 Broadwcy Ltrrle Rod; A:rkar..s:::s 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 .F'zc (501) 37-! '.1187 Fil TR..4.J.~SlV1ISSION COv'JER SERET p A ...:!.. 0 ..c:-1 . Date: [ To: [ Fa..\"C: l _..... .,3.c;.....c..-7 .f.. .-.o ~L-..::cJV;___ ____,7 Re: ,. ' Sender: [_= =~===l)==========; YOU SHOu'LD RECElr'\"E [_ __ (including cover sheer)} PA.GE(S), INCLUDING l'EJS COVER. S,~'f.T IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEA.SE CALL \"\u0026lt;(50]) 374-3758\u0026gt;n T.he information comaineci. :in this fu:!:im:ile m~sage is attorney privilegea and couficientfal infomiation mrended only for tb.e use of 'die indivirlulll or en.tit\u0026lt;/ nllm.ed. above. Ii tile re:icier of mis mem1ge is il.Ot the intended reci:pienr, or me employee or agenr res-pons,\"bie to de!.iver re to the intended. recipient, you sre b.ereoy aoti:iied ilim any disse::nination. di.'1ri\"ouiion or copying of cllis commuuicarion is .rtricrly prohibited. If you b.ave received. this c.onmumic:ition in c!l:IOr. p1C3.!e immedi.\u0026amp;e notify us by telephone. md = cb.e ongmal message .a l.l.'l at tile above address via rb.e U.S. Post.l.l Sc:~iice. Ti:um.k you. RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RELIEF CONCERNING THE ODM BUDGET DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order for the parties' participation in the establishment of the budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 971 F 2d. 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992). This motion is based upon the following allegations and the accompanying memorandum. 1. It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court is in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. A member of the ODM staff affected by staff and budget reductions planned by the court has contacted counsel for these intervenors with regard to her legal rights. 2. In LRSD v. PCSSD, supra, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit articulated the 1 rights of the parties with regard to the establishment fo the ODM budget. To this point, it appears that the court plans to make reductions in the ODM budget and staff without affording the parties the opportunity for participation in the budget-setting process, identified by the Court of Appeals. 3. The Joshua Intervenors concern about this matted~ magnified by the virtual non-use of ODM in the process of determining whether the LRSD had attained unitary status. That is, the court's lengthy opinion is silent on the question of the court's requesting ODM to report on any particular aspect of LRSD' s compliance with the Revised Plan, evidencing that no such request was made. 4. Appeal of the court's merits decision is likely. Any contemplated change in ODM's staffing level should take account of the fact that the Court of Appeals will have the final word - (absent Supreme Court review) on the scope of the LRSD's remaining plan obligations. 5. Alternatively, ODM' s staffing and budget should not be such that it is unable, in the future, to monitor the three districts ' compliance with remaining plan obligations in the manner contemplated by the Court of Appeals. Wherefore, the Joshua Intervenors respeqtfully pray that the court: a. provide the parties access to documents exchanged between ODM and this court concerning ODM staffing and the ODM budget (in th past and in the future): and b. permit the parties to promptly review, analyze, question, and make recommendations concerning or objections regarding the ODM budget and elements thereof, prior to their implementation. Respectfully submitted, 2 /', /) / 1 I ,I I ,  Ro 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 ohn W. Walker ~ John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 AR 64046 . - . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2002 OFACE OF OCT :  DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAM Es 'J1J fi,_ r- r , ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT \u0026amp;'!JllT_  f. ~-A\u0026lt; EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS -- WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ~S. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE ODM BUDGET The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit this memorandum in support of their accompanying motion for relief concerning the ODM budget. It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court is apparently in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. In a 1992 decision, the Court of Appeals identified the roles of the court and the parties in the establishment of the ODM budget. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 971 F 2d. 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992). The motion seeks to insure that the parties have the opportunity for participation identified by the appellate court. A viable ODM is important to these intervenors because in their counsel's view the ODM was not given by the court the role envisioned by the Court of Appeals in the process for  determining court that the LRSD had attained unitary status in most areas. Intervenors' counsel 1 want to guard against a like result in the future. . ,1/ J ff -4? . IC7Ju L / ) ~ ,,y~/4 Robert Pressman t- 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 I I :..- / Respectfully submitted, . . 46 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been to all counsel of record on this r, day of October, 2002. )  ,- / / ,-) ( ./ J26 7 : /_,,,/ \u0026lt;\"// / -1 :./ c)---r. '-1 - 1  /, r ,1 ,J\\ 'l,/.v,__(,'f 1 1-v ,: __,,, 2 RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER OCT '1 C 2002 JAMES \\'I'. L'i -=RK Qy: ___ -\"t.L--=ll'~.\u0026amp;..\u0026lt;;::;:,...,..,.~~ Defendants Intervenors Intervenors Joshua Intervenors have filed a pleading entitled \"The Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget.\" Paragraph 4 of this pleading reflects that, \"(a)ppeal of the court's merits decision is likely.\" If an appeal is to be taken, Joshua's motion is considerably premature. Following the procedure used in the past in this case (and Eighth Circuit directives), once a proposed budget is submitted by the ODM, I will enter an Order attaching a copy of the proposed budget and will provide all parties an opportunity to file objections or comments. ! To my knowledge, no proposed budget has yet been submitted, and; if an appeal is taken, it is unlikely that there will be any significant changes in the budget until the appeal is decided. Accordingly, because Joshua's motion is premature, it is denied, without prejudice. rfl IT IS SO ORDERED this 11_ day of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR~(~ ON\\o \\ l~ 10 2..- 8YJ\u0026gt;.1~~~-;;_=.....- U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE { .,, 6 8 8 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 2 1 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFACE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. Plan 2000 requires that: \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area will be built.\" 2. The PCSSD proposes to acquire a site located at Carnahan and Murphy Drives in Maumelle, Arkansas and to construct its new middle school there. 3. The PCSSD proposes to build a school with a capacity of 1,000 students and to reserve 200 seats for M to M students. 4. The history of the site selection process, statistical projections concerning racial balance and other pertinent information is set forth in the accompanying memorandum. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays that its motion be granted and for all proper relief. 373871-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 22, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 373871-v1 2 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 2,i 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFACE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE Plan 2000 Plan 2000 requires that: \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area will be built.\" This Court approved a district-wide conversion to middle schools on June 4, 2001. Accordingly, this request is specifically to build a middle school to be located at Carnahan and Murphy Drives, Maumelle, Arkansas. A Brief History 1. Pine Forest Elementary School remains the only PCSSD school within the city limits of Maumelle. Pine Forest Elementary School was built in 1980. The present capacity of the school as used this year is 556 .. Maumelle was incorporated in 1985 with a population of 4,359. Today, the population of Maumelle is approximately 10,557. 369448-v1 2. Since its inception as a town in the 1960s, junior and senior high students from Maumelle have all been bused to Oak Grove Junior-Senior High School. As noted in previous filings with this Court, the PCSSD desires to convert Oak Grove into a 9-12 high school and to construct a 6-8 middle school to substitute for the current Oak Grove Junior High School. 3. Currently, Pine Forest Elementary, which would jettison its sixth grade under this proposal, can accommodate only 63% of K-6 children residing in Maumelle. The remainder are currently bused to either Crystal Hill Elementary or Oak Grove Elementary. Under this proposal, both Crystal Hill and Oak Grove Elementary would become K-5 schools. 4. To accommodate current M to M sixth graders at Crystal Hill and to otherwise help realize a fully intergraded middle school, the PCSSD would reserve 200 seats at the new middle school for M to M students. 5. The PCSSD Board of Directors voted 6 to Oto seek approval for a school located within Maumelle at their meeting held on November 13, 2001. Advantages of a Maumelle Site 6. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to move toward completing its conversion to the middle school system and will relieve over-crowding at the landlocked Oak Grove Campus. 7. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to establish a middle school with an interdistrict feature offering more choices and grade levels particularly for those LRSD students who currently attend Crystal Hill Elementary. 369448-v1 2 8. The PCSSD proposes to construct the school with a capacity of'1,000 students providing room not only for the 200 seats reserved for M to M students 1, but also space for students who can be attracted from the local charter school, area private schools and children who are currently being home-schooled. 9. The PCSSD proposes to begin construction by April 1 of 2003 so that the new facility can be open for education by August of 2004. The PCSSD requests approval of this motion as early as reasonably possible so that sites specific work can be completed prior to the April 1, 2003 commencement of construction. 10. The PCSSD proposes to pay for the acquisition and the construction of the school by re-financing existing debt as approved by the voters on September 17, 2002. The Site Selection Process 11. On January 17, 2002, Dr. Henderson, then Assistant Superintendent for Support Services and now Interim Superintendent, addressed approximately 150 parents at the Pine Forest PTA meeting regarding the progress toward selecting a site for a new middle school. Five different proposed sites were highlighted. 12. On February 4, 2002, Dr. Henderson addressed the Crystal Hill Elementary PTA meeting. Again, approximately 150 parents were in attendance and the same five proposed sites were reviewed with them. 13. Dr. Henderson addressed the Oak Grove Elementary PTA meeting on March 5, 2002. Approximately 90 parents were in attendance. On this occasion, seven 1 By agreeing to this reservation, the PCSSD is assuming that M to M funding as currently configured and provided will remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If such funding is reduced or eliminated in the future, the continued reservation of such seats would likely prove impossible. 369448-v1 3 proposed sites were described. 14. By letter dated March 13, 2002, Dr. Henderson invited the Joshua lntervenors to serve on the Site Selection Committee. By letter dated March 15, 2002, Mr. John Walker, on behalf of Joshua, declined the invitation to participate. 15. By memo dated March 19, 2002, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers nominated Diane Jones to serve on the Site Selection Committee, as a Knight intervenor. 16. By memo dated March 14, 2002, the principal of Crystal Hill Elementary School forwarded the names of four parents who desired to serve as members of the Site Selection Committee. One of those is a parent of an M to M student attending Crystal Hill. Oak Grove and Pine Forest Elementary Schools provided a bi-racial list of committee members by telephone. 17. A preliminary meeting of the Bi-Racial Site Selection Committee, which included representatives of ODM, was held on April 23, 2002, at Pine Forest Elementary School. 18. The second meeting of the Site Selection Committee was held on April 29, 2002, at Crystal Hill Elementary School. As part of this meeting, the Committee physically visited the seven possible sites. 19. As the process continued, some of the sites were deleted for various considerations including costs and lack of availability. 20. A copy of the minutes of the meeting held on April 29, 2002, is attached as Exhibit A. It includes capsule descriptions of each site evaluated including information concerning costs. 369448-v1 4 21. The next meeting was held May 8, 2002, at Oak Grove Elementary School. 22. A revised list of the Site Selection Committee members as of May 1, 2002, is attached as Exhibit B. 23. At the Oak Grove meeting, an initial vote was taken to rank the available sites. A final meeting was held on June 10, 2002, at Pine Forest Elementary School. At the end of the process, the site described in Paragraph 1 of this memorandum was selected by the Committee and approved by the School Board. Statistical Considerations 24. As part of the Court approved process for building Crystal Hill Elementary School, the PCSSD agreed to reserve up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill for transferring LRSD students. The construction of the middle school would eliminate the sixth grade at Crystal Hill. It is appropriate to reserve, at a minimum, that prorata number of seats at the new school for LRSD students. 25. Excluding pre-K, there are seven grades at Crystal Hill including kindergarten. This equates to 14% of the seats. 14% of 399 is 56 seats. 26. This number, however, is not sufficient to reach the long-standing PCSSD goal of a minimum of 20% African American students at every school. Accordingly, the PCSSD proposes to reserve a total of 200 seats for eligible M to M transfers at the new school. This would provide 10% of the African American student body if the school is built to house 1000 students. 27. This number coupled with the African American student population currently residing in the Crystal Hill, Pine Forest and Oak Grove zones will be sufficient 369448-v1 5 to safely populate the new school at at least 20% minority. An examination of the current fourth, fifth and sixth grades at those referenced schools demonstrates this projection. Crystal Hill Pine Forest Oak Grove 4\"' Grade Black Students 4\"' Grade Black Students 4\"' Grade Black Students MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total 51 51 2 9 11 5 9 14 5'\" Grade Black Students 5'\" Grade Black Students 5'\" Grade Black Students MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total 51 51 0 20 20 1 6 7 61 \" Grade Black Students 6'\" Grade Black Students 6'\" Grade Black Students MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total 38 38 3 8 11 4 17 21 140 140 5 37 42 10 32 42 28. To make the projection, one should consider both the M to M students currently attending 41 \\ 5th and 6th grade at these schools, together with the resident African American population in these zones. This totals 224 students. This number, as compared to 1,000 seats, projects a minimum population of over 22% African American at the new middle school. 29. Overall, the latest census figures project 7 40 school children between the ages of 12 and 15 years old will be resident within the city limits of Maumelle by the . - year 2005. (Please see Exhibit C). This, together with the students who will be transferred from the Oak Grove area together with the projected M to M students, dictates sizing the school to accommodate 1,000 students. Staffing 30. There should be no negative affects on current staffing. While the Oak Grove Junior/Senior High will be no more, the new middle school will require similar, if not identical, administrative staffing. 369448-v1 6 31. The same students who are currently taught at the sixth grades at the three elementary schools will simply attend the new middle school. The same students who would be seventh and eighth graders at Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School will simply be attending the new middle school but will require the same number of teachers as the District currently employs at the sixth grade in the elementary schools and at the seventh and eighth grades at Oak Grove. Attendance Areas 32. The \"attendance zone\" for the new middle school will be identical to the current attendance zone for Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School. Accordingly, there will be no need to change any attendance zones. Transportation 33. Currently, all secondary Maumelle students are transported from ', ... Maumelle to Oak Grove for grades seven through twelve. Under this concept, resident Maumelle students would now be allowed to attend grades six, seven and eight in their resident community but would continue to be transported for grades nine through twelve at Oak Grove High School. Those Oak Grove students currently attending Oak Grove Junior High School would be transported to Maumelle for their middle school years. The PCSSD believes that this arrangement generates greater equity for the affected communities as the transportation factor is more equally shared under the new arrangement. 34. M to M students would continue to be transported by choice. That is, since they elect to be M to M students, they are not \"assigned\" to the schools they select. Under this proposal, they would simply have the option to continue in an 369448-v1 7 interdistrict setting that includes the seventh and eighth grades and does not terminate at the sixth grade. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the Court approve the location of a new middle school located at Carnahan and Murphy Drives, Maumelle, which would reserve 200 seats for M to M transfer students and for all proper relief. 369448-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By _ ....,...._~--..,..:....;:;=-a.__ _____ _ A nty Special s 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 22, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 369448-v1 9 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 12201  Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Donald J. Henderson, ED.D. Assistant Superintendent DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2227 Ext. 209 Fax: (501) 490-0483 Minutes of Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Bi-Racial Selection Committee Meeting April29,2002 Dr. Don Henderson opened the meeting by handing out a_ meeting agenda and a sign-in sheet for attendees to sign. Dr. Henderson provided several handouts to the attendees and discussed each handout as .they were distributed. Comments and questions were made during the handout process. Dr. Henderson introduced Mr. Jim Sharkey, City of Maumelle, who went over the possible sites. Mr. Sharkey had several map displays that helped show the location of the sites. The sites discussed were six sites from the Maumelle area and the site adjacent to Crystal Hill Elementary owned by PCSSD. Sites 1 and 2 are owned by the City of Maumelle and land costs would be $25,000 per acre. If one of these sites is selected the City would provide an access road and utilities to the site. Site 3 is along Maumelle Boulevard north of the Kroger Store. This site originally was 19 acres but due to a recent partial sale the area now available is 12 acres. Additional acreage is available from adjacent property owners so that a 20 plus acre site could be obtained. The owners of these lands would want to do some type of land swap rather than sell the properties. Access and utilities are available to this site. Site 4 is a 19-acre site at intersection of Naylor Drive and North Odom. Asking price is $50,000 per acre. Access and utilities are available to this site. - Site 5 is a 42-acre site north of the Molex Plant. Needed acreage would be available at $1 .00/SF ($43,560 per acre). Access and utilities are available~to 1111 ___ 1111!11_IIII this site. . EXHIBIT I Site 6 is an 18-acre site owned by Baptist Health. Addition acreage is available from adjacent property owners so a 20 plus acre site could be obtained. Price is in the $2.00 to $2.50/SF ($87,120 to $108,900 per acre) range. Access and utilities are available to this site. Site 7 is property owned by PCSSD that is adjacent to Crystal Hill Elementary. Approximately 20 acres of the 30 acres originally purchased for an elementary/middle school site is available for a middle school. The property value in this area is probably in the $3.50 to $5.00/SF ($152,460 to $217,800) range. This site could be used in a land swap if needed. Following Mr. Sharkey's presentation a field trip via PCSSD school bus was made to visit each of the possible sites. The field trip concluded at approximately 8:00 PM. Next meeting of committee will be at Oak Grove Elementary on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 at 5:30 PM.  Revised 05/01/02 CRYSTAL HILUMAUMELLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBER Terri Ayers ( j. ; 12 Mine Hill ; I No. Little Rock, AR 72118 758-2861 / Russell Laster 24 Hogan Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 851-2151 j Ms. LaBrenda Cohens 1 \u0026lt;1j ').. ?- 7-022 Marche Lateral Road No. Little Rock, AR 72118 851-1717 Mr. Anthony Gross ~,- ., 10711 Mundo Road No. Little Rock, AR 72118 r t \u0026gt;.- Ms. Diane Jones _,} r  123 Ridgeland Drive  Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8188 / M s. P am Skile s ..f,. . :,.. i ,,. \".I  ': .;_ 13 Havenwood Lane 1\\ 1 Maumelle, AR 72113 753-7653 / Ms. Pam Roberts 117 Carnahan, Suite 3 : .1. :.  {:'j : i.__:,tJJ :,..., Maumelle, AR 72113 851-9300 ,11'1s. Essie Coffee .i'. 1),/ 13916 Old Maumelle Rd. Maumelle, AR 72113 851-2696 I ,. ! v'Walter Pace , l-s( i'-,  25023 Highway 365, North Maumelle, AR 72113 851-1388 :. : . \\ ~ .. ~\\ ~ REPRESENTING Crystal Hill Elementary Parent Crystal Hill Elementary Parent Oak Grove Elementary Parent Oak Grove Elementary Parent Knight Intervenors Community Person PCSSD School Board Member District Bi-Racial Committee District Bi-Racial Committee I EXHIBIT /3 -/4s. Mary Scruggs 8 Hickory Place Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8450 -l -.. .. - vl\\1r. Brent Lowrey J. :;.!' . '. (t\\.; 14505 Berberich No. Little Rock, AR 72118 803-4456 . /4r. and Mrs. Reggie Davis _  4 Holly Brook Cove :,_.\\ ';\\) I 1 Maumelle, AR 72113 851-2177 , Mrs. Nancy Foster 12 Barber Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8708 / 1-Mrs. Shenel Sandidge '.  : . _ ,, 17 Pin Oak Loop (_., . Maumelle, AR 72113 \\ (_.-, :,; if_, ,. f:, ~..l 57(H) 682-7893(W) Mrs. Carol Worley 12 Stoneledge Drive i . } \\ ( . Maumelle, AR 72113 'r'.\\ r: : , , . J 851-8208 (H) ~2.1'.\"~.5~5 (W) v1'1rs . Melissa Guldin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza r: ,, t ! 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 , :\\\\ : \\ Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6200 / Mr. Horace Smith Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza ('.  i : 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6200 .)Mr. Richard Crider 26 Sugarloaf Loop Maumele, AR 72113 851-8846 . . .... -   ..  --  --~--- --- ......... . Oak Grove Elementary Parent , Oak Grove Elementary Parent :,u' Pine Forest Elementary Parent Pine Forest Elementary Parent Pine Forest Elementary Parent Office of Desegregation Office of Desegregation Crystal Hill Elementary Parent . ( . I ~ 's. Barbara Means '.: __ l.~ / M ... 1J, tI; t ,.;-,L. .. ~_r j \"J tv'~ ,'\\\\\": _. 13500 Ridgehaven Road G ; . \\( U i C ..-r \u0026lt; ,.\\ Little Rock, AR 72211 223-8477 Dr. Donald J. Henderson. 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 490-6209 Dr. Martha Johnson 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 490-6205 Mr. Jim Sharkey, CCD Director Community and Economic Development 550 Edgewood Drive, .Suite 590 Maumelle, AR 72113 Mr. Junius Babb Assistant Superintendent Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Mr. Bobby Acklin North Little Rock School District 2700 North Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 Crystal Hill Elementary Paren,t PCSSD Assistant Superintendent PCSSD Director of Equity ., . c~;s~s~,ta-_f~ ;r -\u0026lt; . -~ . Pulaski County Special School District . Pro:pQsed)\\fi:dd'}e S~bool ,.  According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 1,984 children between the ages .of 5 to 17 years old reside within-the City of Maumelle . . The average annual growth rate for.this age group w~ 4%, between the y.eatS 1990 and 2000. Based on:this continued average rate of growth, the City of Maumelle should have . approximately 2; 146 children in the-year 2002 and 2, 4l4 children in the: y~ar-2005. According to the 2000 U.S. -Census, 591 children between the ages of 12 to 15 years old . reside within the-City of Maumelle. The average annual growth rate for this age group was 4. 6%, between the years 1990 and 2000. Based on this continued average rate of growth, the City of Maumelle should have  approximately 646 children in the year 2002 and 740 children in the year 2005. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 431 children between the ages of 13 to 15 years old reside within the City of Maumelle. Unfortunately, the U.S. Census did not obtain data on 12 to 13 year old children. Source: Mr. Jerry L. Bell Assistant Research Specialist Census State Data Center UALR Institute for Economic Avancement Tel: 501-569-8538 EXHIBIT I ~ RECEIVED C lr-D \\f- li--..J\"l'ff OCT 2 9 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERJ.'-J DIVISION U s OISlRICT ~~SAS EASTE.RN DISTRICT oc, 2 5 2002 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLER~ B'f.- OE.P CLE.RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether 28 U.S.C. 455 has any relevance to the present proceedings. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that 28 U.S .C. 455 states: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge J of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questions. (b) He shall also disqualify hi\"mself in the follovving circumstances: (]) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judg eor such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or -1- expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; (d) For the purpose of this section the following words or phrases shallhave the meaning indicated: (1) \"proceeding\" includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation; In reference to 28 U.S .C. 455(b)(2), the Comt is required to disqualify itself\"where in private practice he served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy ... \" Undersigned counsel are informed that the Honorable District Court, while in private practice, appeared in 833 F.2d 113 (8th Cir. 1987) in re: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski Countv Special School District, No. 1., Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The cited Opinion addressed the issue of whether Judge Henry Woods should be disqualified. The disqualification - issues had been raised by several of the parties including, notably, the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. See attached Opinion, Exhibit A. The Court of Appeals determined \"that errors of procedure took place but we do not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiality or bias on the part the able and experienced district judge.\" The Court of Appeals apparently upheld the arguments of his honor which were made while His Honor was in private practice. The Court of Appeals did not explain its reasons in that Opinion but did so in 839 F.2d 1296, 1299. The disqualification issues, which were presented by His Honor while in private practice, were addressed in a lengthy Opinion on pages 1301, 1302 and 1303. The Court of Appeals, in that same Opinion, also addressed many of the issues which are raised or could have been raised in the present proceedings including compensatory programs in the LRSD, 839 F.2d 1306, magnet schools, 839 F.2d 1309, and teacher assignments in LRSD, 839 F.2d 1296. -2- The Court , in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002, included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals (see Exhibit B) hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two impo1iant Opinions in which the Collli, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Plaintiff's counsel have sought to obtain the briefs which were filed with respect to Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 by His Honor, while in private practice, and any other briefs or activity which address that subject and have been unable to do so in a timely fashion. Their own records are incomplete regarding those filings . Request has been made of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, however, to retrieve such briefs of all the parties regarding the two cited cases and are informed by the Clerk of that Court that he will retrieve the file. See Exhibit C. The Joshua Intervenors request that the Court convene an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of exploring the role the Court had, if any, while in private practice with respect to the subject case. - In this respect, counsel having just learned this information, also notes that the Court has employed as a law clerk of the Court's staff one of the original lawyers who filed the instant case, Ms. Janet Pulliam. Counsel also note that at least one of Joshua counsel is a friend of Ms. Pulliam. Ms. Pulliam and her associates, however, are listed as counsel of record in at least these appellate citations; 778 F.2d 404, 407; and 959 F.2d 716. She was in association with Phil Kaplan and other counsel in833 F.2d 112 where Mr. Kaplan's name appears before the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. and she was in association with Mr. Kaplan in 839 F.2d 1296. This is confirmed by the fee application of counsel for the LRSD which went to the Comi of Appeals in 1992. See Exhibit D. The Joshua Intervenors believe that 28 US.C. 455 issues are raised which should be developed at a hearing. Counsel are not moving for the Court to recuse at this time; however they would like to have an opportunity to review the proceedings that are set fo1ih above and any other ,., - .) - writings to which the Court was privy, while in private practice, between himself and his client, Judge Woods. In that way, the Com1 and the pai1ies would be in a better position to address the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 455. FURTHERMORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully further pray that at such heaiing the Court 1) inform counsel whether the present assignment of this case to this Court considered His _Honor's earlier role in the case while in private practice, in the light of28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2); 2) the basis for the Com1's conclusion that it did not have a duty to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 (b )(2); and 3) request that the Court, if possible, make available to counsel copies of all briefs which His Honor has filed in this case while in private practice. '; 7 / ,. ./ , I / I .  I, . I  //\\ /--J';,( -~-+ ,/_ ~ '-c,'2-r,.;,f,-/'Lu:..._;, Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 40960 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, Jo n W. Walker, AR Bai No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (50 l) 374-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hick1\u0026lt;_9{ Bar No. 89235 -. Attorney at L-a:w Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 -4- \\ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing: hqf been serzs:9- fl -~ ,,,and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this i-5 , l\\_day of cfl-. '/?-\u0026amp;..., 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -5- Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rocle Arkansas 72201 Ivlr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 3 833 FIWERAL llEI'ORTEU, 2d SE!t!ES In 1e LJ'l\"J'LI~ HOCK SCHOOi, lllS'!'lllC'r, Petilloncr. LITTLE HOCK SCIIOOL DIS'fJtl C:r, Appellant, V. PUl,ASIU COUNTY SPECIAi, SCHOOi, DlS'l'Rl\u0026lt;.:I' NO. I, Appcllcc. Nos. 87-2150, 87-2303. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuiL Submitted Nov. 3, 1987. Deciclcd Nov. 6, 1U87. Supplemental Opinion Filed l'eb. 9, 1988. l.,iligalion was hroughl involving election for school board positions. The Uniled States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Henry Woods, J., direct,. ed elections for three school board positions and nppenl was filed and petition for writ of mandate was filed asking for disqualification of district coutt judge. The Court of Appeals, Arnold, Circuil .Judge, held Lhnt: (1) fact Lhat lawyer wilh whom trial judge once practiced npp\"ared at one time in nnolher case consolidated with pending cnse did not require district court judge's disqualification, and (2) enors of procedure in p1oceeding did not give rise lo reasonable inference of parLialily or bias so as to require disqualiricalion of district courL judge. Ordered accordingly. J. Judges e,,45 Fact that lawyer with whom district court judge once practiced appeared at one lime for amicus curiae in case consolidated with and Inter severed from pending case did not warrant disquali(icalion of district court judge; consolidated case was closed case, or at most, dormant, when it was consolidated and such fleeLing and tenuous connection did not require recusal. 28 U.S. C.A.  455(n), (h)(2). l.   Herny Woods, Unile\u0026lt;I Slates Dislrlct 2. Judges \u0026lt;S=-~9(1) Procedural errors which occurred in litigation involving school board election did not give rise to reasonable inference of partiality or hias so as to require disqualification of district court judge. 28 U.S.C.A.  465(a), (b)(2). P.A. Hollingsworth, LiLtle Rock, Ark., for appellant. William R. Wilson, Jr., Little Rocle, Ark., fot Judge Woods in mandamus. Phil Kapla,i, Little Rock, Ark., for Little Rock School Dist.  Sam Perroni, Little RocU, Ark., for Rayburn. Phillip Lyon, Chicago, 111., for North Lit,. tie Rock. Before HEJi NEY, ARNOLD, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. The two proceedings captioned above, to gether wiLh a number of appeals raising related issues, were argued before us on November 3, 1987, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Two of Lhe many important issues p1esenled deserve immediate answers: (1) Shall the school-board election now scheduled for December 8, 1987, in the Little Rock School District (LRSD), be allowed to lake place? (2) Who shall preside over the District Court! No. 87- 2368 is an appeal by LRSD from Lhe DistricL Court's I order of October 1, 1987, directing that elections for three school-board positions be held on December 8, 1987. This order is affirmed. We find no error of law, abuse of discretion, or clearly erroneous finding of fact in the District Court's order. It is ou, understanding that LRSD is free now to pursue actively the search for a new superintendent, and that it will be free to hire someone right after the elec tion. No. 87-2160 is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by LRSD, asking us to Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. APPLICATlON OF WOOD 113 Cltcns833 F.211 ltJ (SlhClr. 1981) declare that Judge Woods should have dis- The judgment in No. 87-2363 is affirmed qualified himself. In the alternative, it is The petition for writ of mandamus in No. suggested that we simply direct that anoth 87-2160 is denied. We t.lirect lhnt our rnnn er judge be assigned lo this case. ln addi dates in these lwo cases issue forthwiU1 lion to the petition for mandamus, various 1 t is 50 ordere\u0026lt;l. appeals also include suggestions for Lhe disqualification of the trial judge. We are not satisfied that such drastic re1ief is ap propriate. [1] Two main grounds for recusal are urged. First, a lawyer with whom Judgt? Woods once pracLiced appeared at one Lime for an amictis curiae in a case called Cla,t, v. Board of Educ. of the Little Rock School Dist, No. LR-C-64-155. The o;otrict Court first consolidated Cla,k with the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2), which requires disqualification \"where in private practice . . a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously prncliced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter.\" We disagree with this argumenl Clark was a closed case, or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous con nection between the present case and the judge's p3rlner's activiLies while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. [21 In addition, Lhe parties seeking disqualification assert that because of certain procedural improprieties the judge's \"impartiality might reasonably be questioned.\" 28 U.S.C.  455(a). We agree that errors of procedure took place, but we do not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiali ty or bias on the part of U,e able and experienced District Judge. He has performed with diligence in circumstances that are anything but easy. We decline to re rnove him from the case.  Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with re spect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. In re Applicalion of Lnny A. WOOD lo Appear Before the Grnnd Jury (Misc. 85-L-02). Appcnl of UN11'ED S'l'A'fl~S of America. No. 86-1719. United SLnl.es Court of Appenls, Eighth Circuit Submilled March 10, 1987. Decided Nov. 12, 1987. Former conspirncy defendant, who w; acquilted, broughL applicalion to mnke inc vidual presentation lo grand jury concer ing allegations of perjury by F'Bl agent. United States ALtorney presented alleg lions lo grand jury, which declined to t.al acLion. Applicant then filed petition alle ing matter had not been fairly present, nnd again requesting permission to nppe before grand jury. The United Slntea D lrict Court, District of Nebraska, Wan, !{. Urbom, J., issued order lo United St.ul Attorney of Disll\"ict to make represen1 lion of matler, or applicant's petition war be granted. The United States appeal\u0026lt; The Court of Appe\u0026gt;tls, Henney, Cir\u0026lt;! Judge, held that (1) District Court's ori was proper exercise of supervisory pow and (2) order did not violate separation powers. Affirmed. f\u0026lt;'agg, CircuiL Judge, dissented w opinion. ~ --  \u0026lt;.\u0026gt; ~- ..) ---:s: -~ l-l{ - 921 F.2d 1371 (1990) 949 F.2d 253 (1991) 56 F.3d 904 (1995) 148 F.3d 956 (1998) 243 F.2d 361 (1957) .369 F.2d 661 (1966) 426 F.2d 1035 (1970) 449 F.2d 493 (1971) 465 F.2d 1044 (1972) 705 F.2d 265 (1983) 778 F.2d 404 (1985) - 971 F.2d 160 (1992) 131 F.Jd 1255 (1997) 83 F.Jd 1013 (1996) 112 F.3d 953 (1997) JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS ivlr. j\\,fichael Gans United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House Room 24.329 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, MO 63102 JOHN vV. 'vVALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA.t'C (501) 374-4187 Vi.a Facsimile - 314-244-2780 October 22, 2002 Re: Case No. 84-1543 Little Rock School District v. Joshua; Case No. 84-1620 Little Rock School District; OF COUNSEL ROBERT JVIcHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. 21-IcHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD W'ITLE ROCK. ARKANSAS i2210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EM.ill: mchenryd@swbell.net Case Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 - Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School Dear Mr. Gans: Would you kindly search your files and advise whether you have in your archives the briefs of the Appellants and the Appellees regarding the above captioned cases. I am panicularly interested in whether there were briefs filed on behalf of the District Court in the above captioned cases. JWW:js Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~incerely, %9 F'JWBJIJ\\L ItEPOitTJm, 2d SERJES Cl'lTl,E R\u0026lt;JCI( SCHOOL D!STR!CT. Appollant, Aune Milchell; Bob Moore; Pfl.t Gee; Pal Rayburn; Mary .T. Gngej North LiHli Roch CIDs:;room Teachers Associalion; Pula!;Jd Association rJf Clai-~room TeaChP.r~; Litf.le Rock Cl~ssroom 'J.'':!:achers Association; Al~xa Arm slron:;; I{arlos Armsfronr;; Etl Bullinv ton; 1\\h,yyam DcJ.vjs; .Jani1.::e Deni: John Harrison; Alvin 1-J.ndson; Talia Hut.Ison; Milton .Jacksoni Lor\u0026lt;2:ne Jo.~ht1a; Lesl.ie .lo!'lhu;:,.; Stacy .Joshua: Wayne .Joshuai ltatherine f{nighl: Sara Matthews; Ber.it)' Mcl{inney; .Derr iclt Milesi .hrnlCe Miles; .John M. Mi l2s; NAACPi Joyce Person; Brli1n Tnyl01:; Hilton Taylor; Par5l,a 'f~ylor: RfJbert Willingham; 1'011y~ Willi11g. ham, Jnterve11orn, V. PULASIU COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOi, D_18TJ1ICT II I; North Little . Rock School DislrJct; Ll;!:OI\\ B:irues; Sheryl Dunn; Mac Faulhn~ri Ilichanl A. Gid, ding:,; Mari:,.rme Go::;ser; Dl111 Hind man; Shirley Lowery; Bob Lyon: GCorge A. McCrary; Bob l\\lf)rnr.; Stert Morley; Buddy R~ines; D~vid Sain: Hoh Stender; Dole Wnrd; John \\VRrd: Judy Weari Gni.inger Williams, Dcfen- 1lant-::, PhiliJl E. Kapla11; JanP.t PulH::i.mi John Bi.lheilner; F.A. Holling!'iworth, Appel lees. LITTLE llOCK SCl!OOL JJJSTHICT, Appellee, Aune Mitchell; Bob P.-'loore: Pat Gee; Piit R~Jburn; Mary .T. Gage; fforth Lilllr . Roel( Clrtl=i!'il'oorn Teachers /\\ssociation: Pul::u,ld As:mciation or Classroom Teachers; Little Reel\u0026lt; Classroom Te::tchets Assnc.ialion; Alexa J\\_rm!' it.ro11g; I{arlos An11!'itron11; Ed Dul/ingt, 111; l{huyyam Dads; Janice Deni: .Jo h 11 Hnnisun; Alvin Hut.Ison; T:1li.i ; . t: i.,l'l'TLE 1t0CJ{ SCHOOL lHS'l', \" Plll,ASIO \u0026lt;)T\\'. 8CltOOL I . 'i.l'I Cllc :i.c: 959 F.,.d 716 (IUh Cir. 1992) Huclsun: Milton Jackson; .l,ur-?:nc Josh- Sara l\\lnU:llcw:,: H\u0026lt;'cl(J' l\\'lcllin ucJ'; Hcr- 110; Le~lie. Joshua; Slncy Joshun; riclr J\\.li les; .Tn ni (e Mi.lr.:r.; Jo hn M. Wr1y11e Joshua; J(alhninc J.{nighl.; Miles; NAACP; Joy\u0026lt;:~ .Pcnm11: Bthrn Sl\\rn ~fa.Llhews: He.ckr l\\ld{ inuer; Der- Taylor: .lli ll.0 1\\ 'l':t)' lor; Par i:: hn TaJ lor; rick ~mes; Janice ntiles; .Juhn I\\'[. lloherl. \\V illi11 p. lrn 111: 'f'onJ'a Willin rr- ~liles; NAACP; Joyce Persol!; Ddan Imm, lulervcnon;, Tr1rlor; Hilto11 Taylor; Pan; lrn. Tay lor; v .  Robert Willi11ghru11: To11yn Will ing- PUl. ,\\Sl\\l CO\\JN'l'Y sn;c.u1. SCIIOOI, ham, IntervenonJ, PULASl{l COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT # I: North Little !lock School District: L(!on Barnes; Sher.\\'! D111111: J\\lnc Faullrner; Riclrn rd A. GicldingSi Mnria1111c Gosser; Don Himlmnn; Shirley i..fJtrery: Bob L)'OJli George A. l\\kCrory; Bol, Moore; Sl.c,e ~forley; Butld.r Rnines; Dadd Sain: Dab Stender; Dale \\Varel; .J ohn Wnnl; Judy Wear; Grainger Willin111s, De[en don ls, Philip E. J{nphn; .i~t1et Pullia111; .John IJilhcimer: P.A. llo ll i11gsworth, Appe/la11ls. LITJ'LE ROC![ SCHOOL DIS'l'!llCT. Appelhrnt, Anne Milchclli llolJ l\\foore; Pat. Gee; Pnf: Hayburn; l\\fory .J. Gage: Norlh Little flock C.:las~room Tcad1crs Association; Pulos-kt Assor.iation ur Classro(1m Tenchers; J ,iltle Rock Cla~sroont . Teo.chers J\\.ssodalion; Alcxn Arm-strong; Rarlos Annslro11g; Ed B11fli11r.lo11; l(hayyfuu J.)avi!';; Janice Hcnl.: John Harrison; Aldn Ilml.c;on; 'l'alin Hudson: Milton .fncksoni .Lorc11e .Jo~h. ua; Leslie .Joshua; Sl0;cy J o~ lrn :i; Wa_rne .Jo~lni:i.; !{nllt!!dne JC11 ig-llt.i IJISTl l l CT ff .l: North l,lltlc H.oclt fk hoo l Hist.rid: Leon JJ:in1 1~!;i Sher.1'1 1J111111; .t\\:lnc Ji'1111 llmer; lticJrnnl A. n it1- di 11 r,s; Muri:rnne Om:sex; ])un Jl i1111- 1tm n; Sh irlny l,nwcty: Uob L.Yon: \u0026lt;:cnrirc A. McCrnry; Hoh Moon::; Steve .l\\'lorl~y; Utu111y .1lai 11 e5; 1):1\\'id S:i i1t; Boh Sl:cntlc r; On ie \\Vnnl; John Wnnl; Jud]' Wear; (~ rai11 r~er \\V illi;1111 ~, DP.fen~ Phi.lip R Rapln11: .fmtd I1u11i:1111; Joh11 Bilheimer: P.A .. ll ollin ~!-wmth. Appcll cte,;. Nos. D.l-.tr.3R, !H-1U1R, , .. ,,1 D.l--ZIG2. United Stat.es Court: or Appe:tlf::, gight;h Circuit. Suhmitted ,fan. '1, J992. Decided Marc:li ?..!I, .lH92. .Law firm which ,eprescuted school di$ti ict in schoril de~eg-rcg:ll:io11 Ci\\SC n11plied (or att.orney fees for  ~crv icP.s rendP. rr.,1. The United Stat.e~ .Uisl.rkt Court for I.he gast.r.rn Dist.rid n( Ark~nsas, Snsa11 Web her Wrir,hl:, ,J.1 round thnt. di~trict Wt18 a prevnili11g p:ut_y, l:h:it t.l1e parties hn,I agreed l:lrnt clisl:dct would prosecute foe pct.ilions at firm~ pn~vailing 1ntet,, that di~t.rid wonlrl pay tliffcrP.nr:.c bet.ween \\.heir billed ml.rs \"ml \\ltocr.ed~ u.f nny :tU.oi:11cys1 fees award, and 1.hnt I.he p:trtir.~ hnll rnotlifir. cl their n,rrec111c11l. l,t\u0026gt; providP. that ixro11p :ind firm \\\\;ou ld split: ewinly any aw:tnl mncle h_1 the coo rt. I lir,l.rid nppe:ile,1. The Court of Appeals he.lei I.hat: (1) nmouol: of nwanl was neil .her dearly erro1H?.0115 nor ~huM of ,!iscrnl:ion: (2) (i11din1,r l.h:1t. cnt\\- 1-rnd r.xisl.ed hct:wccn clistr id: hnd firm a11d conl.enL\":: of I.Im cont.rnd w:m supported hy I.he e,,idenr.e; and (B) tlisl.ricl: w:is not e::; l: opp,~d 1-(1 dcf~nd :tj{:dn~I: conlP.nl.ion llrnt superin!:cudent had np;recd l.o firm's ptopost, I for r;o;r,o ~plit in aw~rd of :'tU.ornnys' foes . Affirmed. --:..---____ __ _ RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2002 f:t1 -o UC'.' Mn: f~.fl.JI IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT coultl5'rt:,~N 8itf~,trl 1 OFFICE OF EASTER.t\"'\\J DISTRICT OF AR.KAJ.\"'\\JSAS DC Hicr,4Jtt;SA.s DESEGREGATIOH MOHITORIHG WESTERN DIVISION JAM T 2 5 lOO By.- s VV Mccc , '2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL _DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RMA.cic 'L'~F Of: P C(;;;RK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO STAY REDUCTION OF ODM STAFF The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order staying reduction of the - ODM staff, if any, until the final approval of the ODM budget. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. On or about October 14, 2002, Intervenors' counsel learned from an African American staff member of ODM, Ms. Linda Bryant, that she had been given notice of termination as an ODM staff member effective on or about October 15, 2002. Ms. Bryant conveyed to counsel her understanding that her termination was attributable to a directive or requirement of this Couii. 2. Thereafter, in an Order entered on October 16, 2002, this Court recognized that under the law of the case [LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160, 166 (8 1h Cir. 1992)], the pa1iies must have the opportunity for comments and objections prior to final approval of the ODM budget. See Order, para. 3. This Court also wrote that \"no proposed [ODM] budget has yet been submitted .. .. \" Order, para. 4. A. \\j os hua. staymnt -1- 3. The number of ODM staff is a matter encompassed in the ODM budget. 4. In view of the content of the Court's Order of October 16, 2002, it appears that (a) the termination of Ms. Bryant may have resulted from a misunderstanding; (b) alternatively, any actual directive or requirement that Ms. Bryant be te1minated, prior to the completion of the budget-approval process, was inconsistent with the law of the case. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court delay any reduction of ODM staff until final approval of the next ODM budget and declare that it was not the Comi's intention that any reduction in ODM staff take place before final budget approval. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 A: \\joshua.staymnt Respectfully submitted, y' hrr W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 / 'JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (50 l) 3 74-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 Nonh University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663 -9900 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fa~ and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this ';2_ ,;1-/4iay of 62-e,6.i..\u0026amp;.-.\u0026gt;c- 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 A: \\jos hua. staymnt Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3 4 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRNf 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 Jo~;lw. Walker  I_ ., - .) - A.uonz2y at Zc.w 1723 Broad,,vcry Lt..,_,l~ Roe~ ld.7,b:?t.ras ';1206 Te!ephor:e (501) 374-3758 Fr=: (501) 374-418~ .L~\"\u0026lt;{ TR.~\"fSiY.J1SSION COv-:E.R SHEET .... J. Da:ie_ ,- L Io ( J.. c I Zo O --z- 1 .;o.- [ Fa::.. [ $7/-0107) i Re: [ Sender~ (_ YOU S'.!.~OuID R.ECE.:.'i/E [__ __( including cover shee~J] Pd.GE(S), INCLUDING TEJS COvL'?. \u0026amp;\u0026lt;-:.TET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE .tl...LL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The iD:fur.nmion coi.mined.in tlll! fucs;mile =age is a.ttoraeyprivileged.ao.d coufidenti:il .in:formation im:encied only for the use of tb.e indidua! or entity namd above. Tf the re~e: of mis message is not th.e incencied reci-pie!lt, or tb.e e::nployee or ..g~ ~onsibie ,o ~liver re ro dle in:.;;nd.cd. recrpien.:, you are b.e.--eby ll.O~ed ibar my dissetrinarion. c!L-mbunon or copying of 1bis communication is sn-ictly prohibim. if you have received. dris communic:i.tiOll m =r, pies.se i=.ediE.Ie ilOttty us by ,:clepr..one, and return ,he or:ginal me.;sage to us E.! tb.e above address via die U.S. Pesta! Service. T..:lc.llk you.. ---------------------- ~ RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2002 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER FILED E U.S. DISTRICT COURT ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 2 5 2002 ~~Mr-Y~_-s_w=GG'.::~::Q~~::':Q~:.C l!;RK -- ~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Joshua Intervenors' Motion to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff is DENIED because it is moot- please see the Order entered on October 16, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2002. W~0.~- UNITED ST A TESDlSTRICT E THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE (~~~~1~1,j~Q~~~~~.~~ 6 9 2 1N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OCT 3 0 2002 OfFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS JNTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING THE RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C.  455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING Plaintiff Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\") for its Response to Joshua Intervenor's (hereinafter \"Joshua\") Motion for Hearing Regarding the Relevance of 28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceeding states: 1. Joshua's Motion should be denied for failing to comply with the requirement of Local Rule 7.2(a) that all motions be accompanied by a brief consisting of a concise statement of the relevant facts and applicable law. Joshua essentially seeks to obtain discovery from the Court to determine whether grounds for disqualification exist and an advisory opinion as to the applicability of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2). The LRSD knows of no legal authority for Joshua to obtain discovery from the Court. If such legal authority exists, Joshua should include it in a brief as required by Local Rule 7.2(a). It is well-settled that advisory opinions are rarely, if ever, proper in federal litigation. See Order filed Feb. 19, 2002, p. 1 (Docket No. 3576). 2. Joshua's Motion should also be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b). WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be denied; that it be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. F:IHOME\\FENDLEYILRSD 200 1\\unitary-rcsponsc-mot-hcaring-DQ wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on OctoberZr-, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg.  200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENOLEY\\LRS D 200 I \\unitary-response-mot-hearing-DQ. wpd 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL   MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING THE RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C.  455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING I. Joshua Cites No Authority Authorizing the Relief Sought. Joshua essentially seeks to obtain discovery from the Court to determine whether grounds for disqualification exist and an advisory opinion as to the appli,cability of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2). The LRSD knows of no legal authority for Joshua to obtain discovery from the Court. If such legal authority exists, Joshua should include it in a brief as required by Local Rule 7.2(a). It is clear that Joshua has no right to compel discovery from the Court. See Cheeves v. Southern Clays, Inc., 797 F.Supp. 1570, 1580-81 (M.D. Ga. 1992)(\"At the outset, there is simply no precedent for deposing the presiding judge pursuant to compulsory process in aid of motions to disqualify; and, for a number of practical as well as legal and policy considerations, there is no need or justification for such a procedure.\"). It is equally clear that advisory opinions are rarely, if ever, proper in federal litigation. See Order filed Feb. 19, 2002, p. 1 (Docket No. 3576). For these reasons alone, Joshua's Motion should be denied. II. 28 U.S.C.  455. Joshua's Motion should also be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  - 455(a) and (b). Each of these grounds for denial will be discussed in tum below. A. It is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago. The Eighth Circuit has consistently held that motions to disqualify pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b) must be filed in a timely manner. Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir.1992)( claims under 28 U.S.C.  455 must be made in a timely manner); Oglala Sioux  Tribe v. Homestake Mining Co., 722 F.2d 1407, 1414 (8th Cir.1983) (\"Although 455 does not include an explicit time limitation, we believe that a timeliness requirement is appropriate .... \"); United States v. Bauer, 19 F.3d 409, 414 (8th Cir.1994) (\"This court has held that claims under  455 'will not be considered unless timely made.'\") (quoting Holloway). Parties are required to apply for recusal \"at the earliest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating the basis for such a claim,\" Apple v. Jewish Hosp. \u0026amp; Medical Ctr., 829 F.2d 326, 333 (2nd Cir.1987), for two reasons: (1) a prompt application affords the district judge an opportunity to assess its merits, and (2) a prompt application avoids the risk that a party is holding back a recusal motion as a fall-back position in the face of an adverse ruling. See In re International Business Machines Corp., 45 F.3d 641,643 (2nd Cir.1995); accord In re Cargill, Inc., 66 F.3d 1256, 1262-63 (1st Cir.1995) (\"In the real world, recusal motions are sometimes driven more by litigation strategies than by ethical concerns.\"); Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 799 F.2d 1464, 1472 (11th Cir.1986) (\"Counsel, knowing 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 Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_195","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","School integration","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/195"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\ne,==- RECEIVED STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 NOV- 7 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT OFFIOCFE FINAL DESEGREGMAOTNIIOTNO RING 1001 - CENTRAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 7 10 212 187 3 0 0 118 121 659 10 5 4 139 166 2 3 0 112 119 551 11 5 3 Ill 108 3 0 0 88 93 412 12 5 5 107 79 0 3 0 0 103 87 389 ss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~TALFOR:CE TRAL 22 22 569 541 8 7 l 421 420 2,012 $j1 I,//\u0026amp; .\nI j-1/ I 002-HALL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 09 6 4 134 154 13 16 0 0 34 33 394 10 2 125 120 15 19 0 0 38 29 349 II 2 120 100 6 18 0 50 ?\" _., 321 12 2 0 107 106 9 7 0 0 18 29 278 ss 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 0 5 19 TOTALFOR:HALL 10 8 490 489 43 60 1 0 145 ll5 1,361 ,,,.. /P-.,, 003 - MANN MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 06 7 5 89 63 3 63 61 294 07 7 3 86 61 3 0 0 78 52 291 08 3 2 79 71 0 4 2 69 42 273 V TOTAL FOR: MANN M/S 17 10 254 195 6 s 2 4 210 155 858 ~~ f .., ~ -'=-\" .,) !OOS- PARKVIEW GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM Wf WM TOTAL! I 09 3 4 75 72 6 2 0 0 78 60 300 10 3 5 79 64 6 6 0 0 76 48 287 II 5 5 73 70 6 0 76 46 283 /4-AL FOR: PARK\"VIEW 12 4 3 77 59 5 0 0 0 62 59 269 15 17 304 265 23 9 0 1 292 213 1.139 ~ ? -=\n-.o. \" LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 28. 2002 Page ! of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 006-BOOKER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 24 29 0 2 0 0 17 21 94 02 0 21 24 2 2 0 22 16 89 03 2 33 28 0 2 0 0 23 19 108 04 0 0 35 24 3 0 0 38 16 117 05 0 0 36 24 0 0 31 20 113 V K 0 0 26 24 0 0 0 24 20 95 OTAL FOR: BOOKER 4 175 153 6 9 0 155 112 616 9.\n?. .,....., J 007 - DUNBAR MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 4 6 75 79 6 6 2 0 42 46 266 07 7 5 71 73 6 5 0 0 33 43 243 ~TAL FOR: DUNBAR M/S 08 7 5 69 64 6 0 32 37 222 18 16 215 216 18 12 3 0 107 126 731 I  , -7./  ,, ~ ~ / [oos-FAIR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 09 0 0 119 136 4 4 3 18 25 310 10 0 0 87 106 2 2 0 32 25 255 11 0 0 80 90 3 0 17 28 220 12 0 0 75 56 2 0 0 0 17 14 164 ss 0 0 9 II 0 0 0 0 0 5 25 TOTAL FOR: FAIR 0 0 370 399 9 9 I 5 84 97 974 7'}\n! ~\n? 1009 - FORST HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF M WF WM TOTAL 06 92 87 3 2 0 0 36 36 258 07 0 106 83 2 0 0 43 33 269 08 0 85 88 2 0 0 43 38 258 SM 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 2 5 19 TOTAL FOR: FORST HTS M/ 1 ! 285 267 8 4 0 0 124 112 804 t\n?1o I .:9,~ ..p LRSD INFORMATIOJ\\' SERVICES DEPT Monda\u0026gt;. October 28. 2002 Page 2 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 010 - PUL HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 59 69 0 0 0 0 36 45 210 07 2 2 71 80 0 0 0 51 44 251 08 0 0 60 57 4 0 43 61 227 SM 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 TOTALF OR:P ULH TSM IS 2 3 191 212 5 1 1 0 131 150 696 .:ts\"8jt' -(oa J ~OJ 011 - SOUTHWST M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 99 100 0 0 0 0 0 6 207 07 0 0 96 98 2 0 0 5 3 205 08 0 0 80 80 2 2 0 0 5 4 173 SM 0 0 5 17 0 0 0 0 0 23 TOTALF OR:S OUTHWSTM IS 280 295 4 4 0 0 10 13 608 q~~ -5\"5 I e, ~o F-MCCLELLA GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM T-OTALI 09 0 0 146 155 3 3 0 0 7 11 325 10 0 0 136 142 3 5 0 0 3 9 298 11 0 0 120 97 0 0 7 9 235 12 0 0 89 92 0 0 0 6 6 194 ss 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 *TALFOR:MCCLELLA 0 0 495 496 7 9 1 0 23 35 1,066v' C/9/ 11 5~ 9:?J~ 013 - HENDERSN MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTA~ 06 81 89 8 13 0 13 12 219 07 0 73 98 6 9 0 17 16 221 08 0 80 83 4 6 0 15 20 210 SM 0 0 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 5 30 ~T ALF OR:H ENDERSNM IS 2 2 240 289 18 28 2 45 53 680 g\ni.9 c/53 1'6 ?8?'., LRSD INFORMATJON SERVJCES DEPT Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 3 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 015 - CLOVR M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 117 114 II 17 0 0 7 7 274 07 0 0 109 134 II 14 0 0 7 9 284 08 0 2 112 114 7 8 0 0 4 7 254 SM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR: CLOVR M/S 0 3 339 363 29 39 0 0 18 23 814.,., ft--\n{ '1 ~ , I 016-MABEL MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 80 76 0 4 0 0 25 35 221 07 0 102 83 3 3 0 18 24 235 08 0 0 71 84 0 15 21 194 SM 0 0 2 JO 0 0 0 2 2 17 TOTAL FOR: MABEL MIS 0 2 255 253 4 8 l 2 60 82 667 -7,7- ,9 I 7 I ...,. 017 - BALE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 18 24 4 0 0 2 SJ 02 0 0 JS 18 2 0 0 0 0 36 03 0 17 22 0 0 0 3 4 48 04 0 0 18 17 0 0 2 40 05 0 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 3 39 EE 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 2 15 K 0 24 23 4 4 0 0 2 59 p 0 0 11 ?.I 14 0 I 0 0 3 p 0 ~ 35\n\"\" TOTAL FOR: BALE 2 2 132 141 13 6 0 12 14 323  e1p :?!1 d-,f' ~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVJCES DEPT Monda). October 28. 200'.! Page 4 or 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 018-BRADY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 25 24 0 0 0 2 53 02 0 0 32 21 0 0 0 2 4 60 03 0 0 17 15 0 0 0 6 40 04 0 0 15 15 2 0 0 2 0 35 05 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 0 5 0 44 EE 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 18 30 0 0 0 3 3 55 p 0 Q_ 5 )0 5 l_ Q_ I Q_ 0 3 '1 4 5 18  TOTAL FOR: BRADY 0 0 132 135 4 4 0 0 23 14 312  gt..?~ _) 5\" -\nz !020 -MCDERMOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 4 13 12 2 0 0 11 15 59 02 2 22 17 2 0 0 9 8 62 03 2 0 14 14 4 4 0 IS II 65 04 0 16 15 3 0 0 0 13 10 58 05 13 16 2 0 0 0 6 6 45 K 4 15 13 0 3 0 0 13 8 57 p 3 0 4 ,, 3 2 o AS o Q 3 l, 3 I! 18 TQTALFOR:MCDERMOT 15 6 97 90 13 11 -r~ 0 70 61 364v' _\nl,.-, / \"'\"' I 021-CARVER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 14 29 0 0 15 20 83 02 0 23 16 0 0 0 IO 27 78 03 0 21 23 0 2 0 0 14 28 89 04 0 20 32 0 2 0 13 18 87 05 0 0 20 24 0 0 0 0 15 22 81 K 3 22 17 2 2 0 12 15 75 TOTAL FOR: CARVER 3 7 120 141 3 6 3 79 130 493V 9-l. I\n\"\\ ..., ~~1 ,:?\" LRSD INFORMt\u0026gt;.TJONSE RVJCESD EPT Monday. October 28. 2002 Page 5 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 022 - BASELINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 26 15 0 0 0 3 0 45 02 0 0 20 18 0 0 3 3 46 03 0 0 23 16 0 0 0 3 2 45 04 0 0 22 14 0 0 2 41 05 0 0 16 20 0 3 0 0 4 2 45 EE 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 K 0 0 17 19 0 0 2 0 40 p _o_ .ll.:~3 0 Q ?n 3 r. 4 32 / TOTAL FOR: BASELINE 0 137 116 5 5 2 19 13 299 / 7. ,:\n:j ~ 023 - FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 17 8 0 0 0 0 4 3 32 02 0 0 18 13 0 0 0 0 3 3 37 03 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 5 7 38 04 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 19 05 0 0 14 7 0 0 0 0 s 2 28 K 0 0 17 18 0 0 0 2 2 40 p __ 2 15 ~-:\nJ 2 0 0 .3J)_ _l) A 'z -.5 t11 36 / TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 2 104 75 0 0 0 23 24 230 / ?J/. 1024 - FORST PK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 9 12 0 0 0 19 24 68 02 0 2 8 11 0 0 0 0 7 15 43 03 0 2 8 12 0 0 0 10 11 44 04 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 17 14 48 05 0 9 8 0 0 0 0 16 16 50 K 2 2 5 5 0 0 19 25 60 L---!l--- --0-- , ~J)_ .....Q__\u0026lt;LQ._Q... ..Q_ - 15 8 :,. 7. 17 / TOTAL FOR: FORST PK 4 8 48 58 3 0 0 95 113 330 / ~\"?f\u0026gt; ''-' I~ ,\nLRSD INFORJ\\1AT JON SERVICESD EPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 6 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 025 - FRANKLIN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 02 0 31 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 03 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 0 0 46 04 0 0 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 05 0 0 28 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 EE 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 13 K 0 19 37 0 0 0 0 2 60 p 0 0 285~24 0 0 0 0 0 l a-1 1.\u0026amp;7s4 __ TOTALFO~ 2 0 178 188 0 0 0 3 3 375 / 1 g70 ~~~ .3 (, 027 - GIBBS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 16 8 0 0 0 0 9 12 46 02 0 2 18 14 0 13 14 64 03 17 16 2 0 0 17 10 65 04 0 11 12 0 0 0 ll ]] 47 05 0 0 13 13 0 0 12 7 47 /4L FOR:G IBBS K 0 2 10 10 0 0 0 0 9 9 40 2 6 85 73 4 4 1 0 71 1~1 309  \u0026amp;\"/lo 1~\"6 11 028-CHICOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 32 21 3 6 0 0 5 3 70 02 0 0 21 29 9 8 0 4 3 75 03 0 0 29 25 6 9 0 0 3 2 74 04 2 0 17 34 2 4 0 0 3 5 67 05 0 24 32 6 6 0 0 2 4 75 EE 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 5 18 K 0 0 25 39 4 7 0 0 2 3 80 p 0 0 13\n).\u0026amp;\\5 Q 2 ~ 0 0 0 C\u0026gt; 0 111 36  TOTAL FOR: CHICOT 2 164 200 36 43 0 23 25 495  ?~1i\u0026gt; j,\u0026amp;1 i.3 -1i LRSD INFORMATJON SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 7 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 029 - WEST HIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 16 0 0 0 8 2 49 02 0 0 10 19 0 2 0 0 6 4 41 03 0 0 17 21 2 0 0 0 4 5 49 04 0 0 25 14 0 2 0 0 5 4 50 05 0 13 15 0 0 0 0 s 0 34 K 0 0 15 18 0 0 0 0 s 39 p 0 Q_ 0 12 _Q_ 0 2 -1 2 1v,. 18 / TOTALF ORW: ESTH IL 0 107 112 2 5 0 0 35 18 280  .. ~ Q' :::\u0026gt; \"'5/J 030 - JEFFRSN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 10 IO 0 0 0 18 12 53 02 0 0 15 II 0 0 0 0 19 18 63 03 0 15 14 0 0 0 0 20 19 69 04 0 0 25 II 0 0 0 0 14 18 68 05 0 9 18 0 0 0 28 20 77 EE 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 15 17 0 0 0 0 14 14 60 p _o_ Q_ I I 0 JL D D 0 0 5 1112 i.t.7 18 - TOTALF ORJ: EFFRSN 3 91r 87 0 0 118 113 415  ../6?. \" 1031 - CLOVR EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 21 29 6 3 0 0 61 02 0 0 30 31 4 4 0 0 2 72 03 0 0 24 26 2 0 0 0 4 57 04 0 0 21 24 2 5 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 23 25 0 5 0 0 0 2 55 K 0 0 28 38 4 7 0 0 2 80 p 0 0 11'9/)19 3_.)L o 0 0 _/_J -~'~,o 35 / TOTAL FOR: CLOVR EL 0 0 158 192 19 27 I 0 4 11 412  3t- f1\n5 '-3'~ LRSD INFORM.AT.I ON SERVICESD EPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 8 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 6 14 0 0 4 3 29 02 0 0 9 9 3 0 0 0 8 34 03 0 0 15 6 0 0 0 12 35 04 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 2 18 05 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 2 4 16 EE 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 10 K 0 0 14 11 4 0 0 4 6 40 p 0 Q_ 11 $. 2... {L ~ 0 0 2.5 ..3 \u0026lt;.e_t718 / TOTALF OR:D ODD 0 0 59 64 12 3 0 0 32 30 200 ~::\u0026gt;-7. . I :::I 1- t~ 1033 - MEADCLIF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 18 12 2 3 0 0 4 7 47 02 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 5 3 50 03 0 13 16 3 0 0 7 5 46 04 0 0 20 11 4 0 0 0 8 4 47 05 0 0 22 14 2 2 0 0 2 43 K 0 0 22 26 0 0 0 5 6 60 0 0 IQ f~ 6 ~ 2 ..J Q_ Q 2 3 5,.,,jo 28 / TOTALF OR:M EADCLIF 120 111 17 9 0 0 33 29 321 / 73--?-i ~cl ~Q' I .) LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monda). October ~8. 2002 Page 9 of I 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 034 - MITCHELL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 19 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 02 0 0 24 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 03 0 0 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 0 0 22 19 0 0 0 0 43 OS 0 0 25 20 0 0 0 0 2 48 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 27 11 0 0 0 0 0 39 p 0 0 8 f?S IQ Q 0 C\u0026gt; 0 0 Q 0 Q 1~2-18/ TOTALF OR~:\n:) 0 0 151 125 2 0 0 0 4 2 284/ 97~ 77(., ~ (.p 035-MLKING GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 18 19 0 0 0 25 13 77 02 2 15 24 0 0 21 15 80 03 3 2 19 21 0 21 14 83 04 22 23 0 20 18 88 05 0 20 17 2 0 0 0 9 13 62 K 0 4 23 23 0 2 0 21 22 96 p 3 3 20 ~~13 Q Q (., 0 Q_ 1s~ 0 1s ~[-tl-69v ,OTAL FOR: ML KING IO 12 137 140 5 5 2 2 132 110 555V ~77 3(,, d(..\n/~ ol, 036 -ROCKFELR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 15 20 2 0 0 0 13 14 64 02 0 0 18 17 0 0 0 0 8 7 50 t~$r'?) 03 0 0 26 13 3 0 0 7 7 57 04 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 8 6 45 05 0 0 20 J 8 0 2 0 0 8 IO 58 K 0 16 17 2 0 0 10 ll 58 p 2 4 22 ,j_j_ ?? Q 0 ~ 2 21,j~ 22 \u0026gt;(l,'?, 96/ *OTAL FOR: E~  2 5 132 122 5 7 2 75 77 428 ~Q.,._ ,.p_:)- JSc,)....J 11- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 10 of 17 hL 1/Jrk,n~-- 3/io/~ ~.,~,.d- :th /4iL .J/ r olt\u0026gt;~ ,H.o\" +I I f\n)t1w~I/ ~u e \"\"' ?If' 0. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 037- GEYER SP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 13 0 3 0 0 3 3 38 02 0 0 26 21 0 0 0 50 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 2 2 47 04 0 0 25 17 0 0 3 4 51 05 0 0 16 27 0 4 0 0 0 48 K 0 0 25 14 0 0 0 0 0 40 p Q 0 l6~0I~ 2 2 ....\nQ Q o D o \u0026lt;{,'?6 o 34 / TOTALFOR:GEYERSP 0 0 147 124 6 12 0 0 10 9 308-:/ gg?o ~1/ I~ (1 038-PULHTE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 0 12 13 46 02 2 8 0 0 0 0 11 11 41 03 11 13 0 0 0 0 12 6 44 04 0 ]I 11 0 0 0 0 13 16 52 05 0 0 ]I 12 0 0 0 0 JO 9 42 K 0 JO 10 0 0 0 0 9 9 39 p 0 2 4 ~ 4 0 I _3 0 0 2 7 2 .']_)/1, V TOTALF OR:P ULH TE 4 5 65, ~ ~9 0 1 0 0 72 66 282 ..yglo /C /:!, ~ 039 - RIGHTSEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 21 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 02 0 0 20 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 0 0 26 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 05 0 0 25 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 K 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 p 0 Q 1s P'F 1s 0 0 0 0 0 o o _Q_J__,:~:\u0026gt;'r~ TOTALFOe~ 0 0 153 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 / Jt}f)(o ~13 0 0 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 11 of l 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 040-ROMINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 12 8 5 0 0 6 4 36 02 0 0 12 15 5 0 0 5 4 42 03 0 JO 18 2 2 0 2 2 38 04 0 13 8 3 0 0 3 30 05 0 0 8 11 4 0 0 3 6 37 EE 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 K 0 14 17 4 4 0 5 7 53 e J'l (~ 5 1 2 1 0 0 4 I/ 7 #\u0026gt;!- 36  TOTA L FOR: ROMINE 3 2 83 94 16 26 2 0 28 35 2891 ~17' 171 ~1 G.3 041 - STEPHENS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 45 47 3 2 0 0 2 100 02 0 0 35 37 0 0 0 75 03 0 0 45 40 0 5 0 0 2 0 92 04 0 0 38 27 2 2 0 0 0 0 69 05 0 0 37 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 EE 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 12 K 0 0 43 34 0 0 0 0 2 80 e Q Q 752_/ 26 0 I o 0 0 ,\nL, 2 q-11. 54 TOTAL FOR:~ ~,.. 0 271 261 6 10 1 0 7 9 c:6 q!?o 5~?- I~ /lt' LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 12 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 042 - WASHNGTN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 0 28 24 3 0 0 6 3 67 02 2 3 17 19 7 5 0 0 7 8 68 03 2 0 15 24 4 0 0 6 53 04 21 18 7 2 0 0 7 13 70 05 17 21 5 7 0 0 4 8 64 EE 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 16 K 3 3 22 22 3 2 0 0 10 6 71 ~AL FOR, WASHNGTN p 2 _Q_ _.L(L 'u A _i_j _l_ 0 1. ,~ 12 2 54 / 13 9 136 152 33 19 0 49 51 463 (p,\n\u0026gt;-~ A~i 70 /t, c\u0026gt; 043 - WILLIAMS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 0 17 15 64 02 4 18 13 0 0 0 0 14 13 63 03 3 6 29 16 0 0 13 19 88 04 2 6 18 28 0 0 0 0 18 18 90 05 3 6 25 23 0 0 0 0 13 25 95 0oTAL FOR: WILLIAMS K 2 19 1~ 0 0 0 0 8 18 60 13 21 122 lll 0 0 83 108 460/ 7e .A,., 3 .:5., 0 1044 - WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 01 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 2 37 02 0 17 28 0 0 0 0 0 2 48 03 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 43 04 0 0 17 15 2 0 0 0 0 35 05 0 14 18 0 0 0 2 0 36 EE 0 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 22 K 0 0 20 16 2 0 0 0 40 l'_ _()_ 0 2 15 j_ ~ L _J -0- _a_ _Q_ /_1_ \"ilf  17  278 TOTAL FOR: WlL 01' 2 ]13 140 5 4 0 5 7 /1 .., ~ I :\n)_, I . LRSD INFORMATlON SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Pagel3of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 045 - WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 20 0 0 0 4 48 02 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 0 3 35 03 0 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 40 04 0 0 22 12 0 0 0 0 0 35 05 0 0 22 17 0 0 0 0 2 42 K 0 0 19 14 0 0 0 0 4 3 40 p 0 0 14~q 15 Q._ 0--12 0- 3 (L__3_ ~ 7 35 / TOTAL FOR: WOODRUFF 0 0 134 112 0 0 0 2 14 13 m-/ 37 /2- ..\n?~ ~ ~, 046 - MABEL EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 17 0 2 0 0 2 38 02 0 0 17 II 0 0 6 0 36 03 0 0 9 16 2 0 0 4 6 38 04 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 35 05 0 0 17 12 0 0 0 0 7 41 EE 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 10 K 0 16 17 0 0 0 0 2 3 39 p 0 0 s 1/ 6 0 Q OQ _lL 3 \" 4 lt/i y TOTALFOR:MABELEL 0 103 94 3 4 0 0 27 23 255 IV 77 ~ ,9~ Q ~ 1047-TERRY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 4 7 22 29 2 4 0 0 17 15 100 02 2 21 19 3 0 0 13 12 72 03 5 0 19 17 4 2 0 0 19 14 80 04 0 21 19 3 2 0 0 12 13 71 05 2 25 20 0 3 0 0 15 13 79 K 6 3 28 22 6 0 0 16 15 97 p 2 2 4 '1 5 0 0 0 0 I ~ 3 ~\"' 18 ./' TOTAL FOR: TERRY 20 16 140 131 17 15 0 0 93 85 517 -':\u0026gt; ~l- ~'1/ e,,'5 1?0 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 14 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 048 - FULBRIGH GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 27 33 89 02 2 0 12 s 0 0 0 0 11 37 67 03 0 14 18 0 0 0 23 15 72 04 0 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 18 20 76 OS 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 16 21 69 EE 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 K 3 2 10 18 0 0 18 24 77 p 0 2 3 I 0 0 I 0 0 s Ii 6 177. 18  TOTAL FOR: FULBRIGH 6 3 85 94 2 0 123 158 474  ~'6i'v !'?Cj I 050 - OTTER CR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 23 23 0 0 0 0 11 16 74 02 0 16 22 2 0 0 0 14 10 65 03 0 26 17 0 0 ll 12 69 04 0 17 17 0 0 0 16 14 66 05 0 0 13 21 0 0 0 10 11 56 K 0 2 24 21 0 0 13 17 79 p 2 _Q_ 2 .ts 3 o.3 0 0 4 /0 6 fil 18 / TOTAL FOR: OTTER CR 4 4 121 124 6 3 0 0 79 86 427/ 5\"?,le ~/6\n7 /46 051 - W AKEFIEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 18 3 2 0 0 0 40 02 0 0 24 I 8 6 7 0 0 0 56 03 0 0 19 18 0 2 0 0 0 3 42 04 0 0 26 23 2 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 30 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 50 K 0 0 ?_\", 28 7 0 ~ 0 69 TOTAL FOR: WAKEFfEL 0 0 138 123 19 21 0 2 2 4 309v tl- ~~( ..\n/::J-.-\n~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28. 2002 Page 15 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 052- WATSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 40 42 0 0 0 85 02 0 0 36 30 2 0 0 0 0 69 03 0 0 34 31 0 3 0 0 2 73 04 0 0 44 36 0 0 0 0 82 05 0 0 22 30 0 0 0 2 56 K 0 0 29 45 2 2 0 0 0 2 80 :e 0 Q ]!!~ 021 0 l o 0 0 c) 0 . ,171. 36 / TOTAL FOR: WATSON 0 0 219 235 7 7 /}/ 0 6 7 481/ 9-'l?o I~ 725-AGENCY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 03 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 04 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 07 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 II 08 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 13 09 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 IO 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 2 15 11 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALFOR:AGENCY 0 0 16 59 0 0 0 0 7 JO 92 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 16 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 766-ALC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 07 0 0 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 23 08 0 0 4 .z../011 0 0 .P0- -, 0 0 0 0 Ji\nu 95?. 09 0 0 9 24 0 0 0 0 0 34 IO 0 0 4 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 II 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 TOTAL FOR: ALC\nI .. J:. 0 0 25 74 0 0 103 \" a/I D _?---- t I 97~ I 1767-ACCL P GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL\\ I 09 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 10 IO 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 22 JI 0 0 30 25 0 0 0 3 8 67 12 0 0 47 31 0 0 0 6 IO 95 TOTAL FOR: ACC LP 0 0 92 64 2 0 0 12 23 194 7. 1- ,:3 '3' GRA DTOTAL: 207 201 8777 8809 455 471 30 27 3294 3251 25,522 t\n:/,,, j --,=--..,..,.._/ 2?,t. 8'o/ ~o/ d),_\n1~'7 ~7.\n1,3 t\n'J~ /?l,p,_/,. ~./ 1\u0026lt;t1 P,'J\nL 1 -1/1 t[, fp~ 71?- ~,../~ /t~ /.,/ .,iiP$~ :5\u0026lt;?~ /) 88.\nL, c.f{, 1 {,~fl , . .::::,. .\n), ~)J~ \u0026lt;3/' is71 ~- \"B1 j,~IP{ /~1o1 t? ---r,-,,,..,/::\n, ~1lP -r\n,..\nl7i~tl\n) 9-CIJ t.~~g- ~.i\nao (,? 7,, ff~ t.,\n) I ,P 8~ ~-g\n.:\nr~tt ~(p~ LRSD INFORMATJON SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 17 of 17 1,95/ ( I General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 ,\n1 Count results for 2002-2003 for Districts: liiiiiii:iiiit@iittiiiii@ii TERMS:  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_ enr. cgi ?year=2002\u0026amp;data _level=district\u0026amp;distname=600... 1/27/2003 01/08/2003 11:27 Tuniow Babbs 4.ssociate Superintendent lulie Wiedower Director- Dates to Remember: Nov. 27-28-29 Thanbg1vmg . Holiday Nov. 10 PTA Council Brady Elementaxy 11:30 501-324-2281 Nov. 19 School Board Meeting Dec. 23-Jan. 3 Winttt Vacation Jan. 6 Classes Resume Jan. 14 PTA Council Dunbar Middle 11:30 Jan. 17 Teacher Records Day Students Out Jan. 20 King Holiday Students Out Jan. 22-24 \"Check Us Out'' in all schools 9 am to 1:30 pm Jan.17-Feb.7,2003 Registration for 2003-04 Items Needed For Registration: Birth Certificate Social Security Number Proof of Address LR SD SRO PAGE: 01/02 UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Registration Office 501 Shennan Streei, Little Rock, 4.R 72202 501-447-2950 www.lrsd.org FAX COVER SHEET 501-447-2951 To:_....i..,L..-C?\u0026lt;Wj=-----+--- FaxNumber: 3 / / -O { 0 0 From:_----+-Q------\"A!_'=-WV\\\"\"-=-~-Q__,,i-=-Date:_. _ _.i_/_---=[f_-_0_3_ # Pages Including Cover Sheet: d' Re: ------------------------ cc: _______________________ _ 01/08/2003 11:27 501-324-2281 LR SD SRO Little Rock Schoof District 2002-2003 Capacities 2002-2003 Cape\u0026lt;:i\\let SCHOOi.. Capaciti C6ntraH1S + FairHs____ 122200(0 Hall HS ----1300 includes portables McC/e/lBHt1S 14-40\"i ncludes annex PeriMewM\u0026amp;g~ 1200 Sub-Total 7340 CloverdalMe iddle ~150 DvnbBMl iddle 780 F0tesHt eightMs iddleI -~ Hend9fSoMn iddle -r 960 Msb6t,taMlei ddl9 600 Mell/MI iddle 900 PulaskHi eightsM id\u0026lt;llo 750 SouthwesMt iddle 750 Sub-Total 0270 -----1 Bele:,_ _____ +- _ 383 Base/Jne I 3ro aoo1re, -~~ Brady ' ,09 Carver m Cllicot --~ 509 c~1~=J  -~ Dod_d_ _  27J_ FeirP~--=t~ ForestP 9rk , 400 Triinkfln 532 1-F_u\n_1_J_n_g_-\"--_h_l 49 358 _1 GgyerS pring$ Gibbs 324 ~rson -~ King i 715 ~elyal\u0026amp; -IT. 443 McDermott 453 MeedoWcliff f 358 Mitchell --~ OtterC1'891( +~ ~Heighls- '---~ Righlsell ---r 296 Rockefe~ --r-481  P1 - 5th Grade --- 403 Stephens '--~~ Terry I 597  ,ncludei\nportables Wakefleld I 395 utthzing Badgett Gita includes portables W\u0026amp;shingto,1 I 678 '-------~- Wstson t- 534 WestemH ills 370 ~:\ns=-+ : ~ -- --m Sub-Total 15015 Grand Total 28$25 PAGE 02/02 1/lliOJ LEA: 6002050 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT:'. N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE: 1 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 561 Bi 41 181 251 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL I 5 6 I 9 I 9 I 16 I 2 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 511 61 61 231 161 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL I 50 I 71 6 I 20 I 14 I 2 I 11 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL I 621 131 91 161 24 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL I 51 I 10 I 9 I 22 I 10 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 B ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL I 3261 531 431 ll51 llll 31 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 0 I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- /(. x'~4- -y' \u0026amp;-r\u0026gt; 7,. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING J.,EA: 6002053 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BELWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 2 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 281 31 31 121 101 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 2 5 I 5 I 2 I 6 I 11 I O I 1 I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 20 I 51 3 I 5 I 71 0 I O I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 20 I 31 4 I 9 I 4 I O I OI O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 371 71 41 131 111 01 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 5 ENROLLI 18 I 4 I 4 I 7 I 3 I O I O I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI OI O I OI O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1491 271 201 521 471 01 31 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ..\u0026gt;/7 n 3 ~~,-/4 Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002054 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 3 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BOONEP ARK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLb\nS9~1 s .11 1111~,1 1so1 1.-1 01 01 01 01 o ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 62 I 4 I 2 I 2 9 I 2 6 I O I 11 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 761 31 21 331 361 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 761 31 01 251 471 01 01 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 581 31 11 241 291 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 521 11 11 251 251 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 72 I 3 I 3 I 33 I 311 2 I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3961 171 91 1691 1941 31 31 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+.-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- -jl.5:5. ~.:)..., ~er s fl ~/ ?~ Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y .LEA: 6002055 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 4 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: CRESTWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL !GRADEi I TOTAL! I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ !AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 551 161 181 151 61 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 101 51 51 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 711 2 5 I 2 6 I 14 I 6 I O I OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 581 211 181 101 91 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 4 9 I 15 I 14 I 111 8 I O I OI OI O I 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 481 131 211 Bi 61 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 11 0 I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 50 I 151 131 10 I 111 0 I O I 11 0 I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! Oi 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 3311 1051 1101 681 461 01 01 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 13 I 6 I 7 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+--:::\n-16---+-----:\n7--+-----~--+---~:_\n-\n,--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y _LEA: 600205 6 PAGE: 5 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYS CHOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 2 4 I 6 I 1 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 2 9 I 5 I 5 I 10 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 351 21  31 171 13 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 311 31 31 131 12 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 28 I 11 51 14 I 8 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 36 I 4 I 21 18 I 121 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1831 211 191 801 631 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ...yo /- 2' o 7/f/o Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002057 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 6 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 77 I 27 I 281 10 I 10 I 0 I 11 0 I 11 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 13 I 6 I 6 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 7 0 I 2 6 I 2 4 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 751 241 301 71 111 01 01 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 11 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 661 251 261 81 61 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 7 5 I 2 9 I 2 5 I 10 I 7 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 2 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 661 211 281 61 101 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 21 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4291 1521 1611 491 531 11 41 41 51 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 201 101 91 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+---_:\n3--+----/~:\nL.-+-----+\n7+--- ~+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y :LEA: 6002058 PAGE: 7 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 \\GRADE\\ \\TOTAL\\ I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ \\AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC \\PACIFIC ISL\\ALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL\\ 60\\ 24\\ 26\\ 3\\ 6\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 54 I 14 I 20 I 11 I 7 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL\\ 55\\ 221 14\\ 9\\ 7\\ 1\\ 11 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL I 4 9 I 17 I 9 I 11 I 8 I 2 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL\\ 421 13\\ 12\\ 131 3\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 11 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL\\ 53\\ 16\\ 15\\ 71 11\\ 1\\ 3\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 01 0\\ 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL\\ 3131 106\\ 96\\ 541 421 7\\ 61 11 1\\ 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 01 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~0_\n2..-, 9C'r /6 ,4/?.. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ~EA: 6002059 PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 8 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt404 ~~\n~~~~:~~~~~:~~\n:\n:~~~~:~~\n~~~:::::~__pl~--~_!:'~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~ I GRADEi ITOTALI I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI O I O I OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI O I OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 6591 1151 1121 1921 2131 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 6591 1151 1121 1921 2131 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~~7 -\u0026lt;105 ~ '\"I c\n./7, Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002060 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 9 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 4 3 I 3 I 2 I 21 I 1 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 561 51 41 161 301 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 531 31 4 I 27 I 1 7 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 661 21 61 261 311 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 631 91 4 I 251 251 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 521 61 91 131 241 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3331 281 291 1281 1441 41 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 0 I 0 I 2 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+--- c:57 --+--- ~7~ +----y ---+- g-_\ni~ ----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002061 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: MEADOWPA RK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 10 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 2 6 I 4 I 4 I 11 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 351 31 51 101 171 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 251 3 I 3 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 11 1 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 3 ENROLLI 21 I 0 I 0 I 8 I 12 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 261 31 31 71 131 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 24 I 4 I 4 I 9 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1571 171 191 531 651 11 01 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- -34, 118 ..3 ?~,/4 Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ,LEA: 6002063 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 11 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NO. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 651 Bl 71 161 181 31 131 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 671 81 71 171 191 101 61 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 711 61 101 221 181 Bl 71 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 82 I 19 I 12 I 13 I 18 I 13 I 71 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----. +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 87 I 111 121 22 I 251 111 61 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 791 131 131 201 231 71 21 01 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4511 651 611 1101 1211 521 411 01 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- /.\n? ~ ~.31 7~ I?. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002064 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 12 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi ITOTALI I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 351 91 71 81 111 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 38 I 12 I 8 I 8 I 10 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 38 I 9 I 4 I 14 I 11 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 381 51 101 101 121 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 4 2 I 11 I 7 I 14 I 8 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 561 111 111 181 151 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 2471 571 471 721 671 21 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+----10 -+----\n/ic/--+------ ---+--~~--\n,~--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ):,EA: 6002065 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 13 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 561 121 41 231 151 21 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 501 111 111 171 101 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----~-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 411 61 61 131 161 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 551 101 101 201 141 01 01 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 641 91 111 211 201 01 21 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 451 71 121 111 141 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3111 551 541 1051 891 31 31 21 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+----/-\n1--+---:\nw--+-----~---+---~~\u0026gt;=--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y t'EA: 6002069 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEM. SCHOOL PAGE: 14 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 4 2 I 0 I 0 I 21 I 21 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 441 01 11 231 201 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 501 01 11 261 231 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 481 21 11 211 241 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 53 I 2 I 2 I 25 I 24 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 571 61 41 271 201 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 2941 101 91 1431 1321 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- / 1 _\n\u0026gt;?5 0 9-Y' Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y -r. 0 -1,o 95 .LEA: 6002070 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOODM IDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 15 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE M I F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--. --+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 2741 771 881 581 471 11 11 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 711 261 421 01 11 01 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 3021 901 1011 621 431 21 21 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 61 21 31 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5761 1671 1891 1201 901 31 31 21 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- +-----+---- +-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 771 281 451 01 11 11 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~~ ~10 /0 ~ts,?, Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN2 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING EA: 6002072 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 16 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK M ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 3 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 288 I 381 381 104 I 90 I 111 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 3011 471 381 1101 951 61 41 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5891 851 761 2141 1851 171 111 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+--- / ~ r --+-- ~9...-.-+,- -- ~ 1---+- c:8. '?-----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ,LEA: 600207 5 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 17 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt404 ~~~~~~~~~~1@:~\n,/4:?~,\n,t:a,:.1.D ___________ RuN~Yi~~~s\n~~~\n/~~~~1 I GRADEi ITOTALI I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI /$~I /ll ~I \u0026amp;-'/6'1 4,01 ~I ~I 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLl/34'1 /-(fl -..e-1 ~~I ~I ~1-1 ~0'1 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+--- -5' ----+--- /~?---+--?----+ ,9..d/4 ----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002077 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 19 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 3 I 11 0 I 1 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 11 7 I 7 I 7 I 54 I 4 7 I 0 I 0 I 11 11 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 1221 101 111 591 421 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 o9\n~\n~~~7--\n~---~:7---~,7--~~~7---\n7----\n7----\n7----~7----~7----\n------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~-5 3 8 .\n?05 d).-' ?i-.Yi\".. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002077 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL-(7,::-,,J-,f. PAGE: 38 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 9 ENROLLI 3 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0i 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I  0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 31 11 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** ~EA: 6002075 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM PAGE: 36 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST CAMPUS !GRADEi I TOTAL! I M WHITE F M BLACK F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 7121 1561 1611 1941 1741 151 lll 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 61 31 21 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 609! 1451 1341 1711 139! 71 61 31 21 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! lll Si Si 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI O I OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI O I OI OI O I O I OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! Oi 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 13211 301! 295! 365! 313! 221 171 31 21 11 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 7 I 8 I 7 I 11 11 0 I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- d59\u0026lt;\no ?75\" ~7 d/?. ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATES! 01 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** LEA: 6002076 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST CAMPUS PAGE: 37 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 251 41 11 131 51 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 1301 211 121 561 351 21 41 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLL! 5721 1291 1691 1211 1421 21 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 81 171 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 5841 1511 1461 1121 1631 31 31 11 31 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 31 11 21 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----.+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI OJ O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 13111 3051 3281 3021 3451 81 141 31 41 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 291 91 191 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- \u0026amp;33- \u0026lt;\n4,7 ~/ -Y'??.. ****************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- GRADUATEIS 508 I 1391 1221 94 I 128 I 51 91 31 61 11 1 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- ****************************************************************************** 0, -t7ol LEA: 6002000 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY DISTRICT PAGE: 1 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY DISTRICT ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt304 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE: 10/15/2002 :=~~~~~---~.\u0026amp;-/ ------------------------------------~~~~-=~~==~~~~~-~=~~~ I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ I HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 6291 1241 1061 1951 1811 71 151 01 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 121 111 11 11 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 6711 1261 1241 1891 2061 141 101 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 0 I 2 I O I 0 I O I O I O I O I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 6481 1101 1021 2061 2041 111 81 41 21 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 6 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 6331 1111 1021 1941 1921 191 131 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 01 11 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 6791 1221 1161 2131 1991 131 111 21 31 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 6591 1201 1271 2011 1911 121 61 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 2 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 6631 1161 1121 1931 2151 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 6791 1221 1331 2161 1841 121 81 21 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 711 261 421 01 11 01 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 7251 1471 1501 2311 1801 81 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 7 I 3 I . 3 J O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------~36--~9+-~+-4\u0026amp;8\"+-~+--~+--_:jt+---4,-+---(\n.+----l-+----+---- ~~~~~~!-::~!-=~=}1-=~~.-\n=, 12 1:~!- 1=-~---=-=~\n1,l-!- --~1----=+---- ---=~~=1.=.\n~\n~~--t-li~i--1-7---~-ti~~1----1=~?.-~1----1~----~+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFFIOCEF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO ,. LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y DISTRICT SCHOOL CHOICE BY DISTRICT ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 2 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: SIS: rpt304 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:40 !GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F I I HISPANIC M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 7401 1611 1631 2081 1791 161 121 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 6 I 31 2 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 7391 1661 1461 2271 1741 91 101 31 21 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 111 51 51 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 5721 1291 1691 1211 1421 21 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 Bl 171 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 5841 1511 1461 1121 1631 31 31 11 31 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 11 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 26351 6071 6241 6681 6581 301 311 61 61 11 4 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 461 171 261 11 11 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBER OF GRADUATES FOR PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 5081 1391 1221 941 1281 51 91 31 61 11 1 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ' ..  General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 2 Count results for 2002-2003 for Districts: NORTH LITTLE ROCK (6002) B African African Asian Asian Hispanic Hispanic Native Native White White American American American American ITotall Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female ~II 189 II 206 II=:DI 1 14 10 0 II 0 11~1 124 II~ ~II 206 II 204 11~1 2 11 8 0 II 1 11~1 102 116481 ~I 194 II 192 II=:DI 0 19 13 1 II 0 II :DTII 102 116331 ~JI 213 199 IIJJI 3 13 11 0 II 0 II }fill 116 116191 ~II 201 191 II=:DI 0 12 6 1 II 0 11~1 127 116591 ~II 193 215 II=:DI 0 11 13 2 II 0 ll:DIJI 112 116631 ~II 216 184 IIJJI 2 12 8 0 II 0 ll}fill 133 116791 ~II 231 180 IIJJI 1 8 6 0 II 0 1[2]1 150 111251 ~II 208 I 179 I0:JI 0 16 12 0 II 1 ll2illl 163 11140 I ~II 227 II 174 IOJI 2 9 10 1 II 1 11~1 146 117391 ~II 121 II 142 I1-=:DI 1 2 6 0 II 0 11~1 169 115121 DIii 112 II 163 [TI! 3 3 3 0 II 2 11~1 146 II5s41 ~II 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 I 0 ll~I 0 10 ~II 195 II 181 11~1 1 7 15 0 0 IIEDI 106 II 629I ~II 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 0 IL~! 0 II~ ~JI 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 0 11~1 0 10 I Total JI 2506 II 2410 lc:fill 16 I 137 121 5 5 111105111 696 1is6211 ,I Nov 22 02 U9:05a facsimile1 rans111ittal ,o: Margie Powell Fax: From: Hobby J. Acklin Date: Re: 2002-2003 Buiiding Capi1eities Pages: CC: 0 Urgent 0 FocReview D Please Comment Notes: 5017718001 Bobhy J. Acl.1111 Norlh Little Rock School D1stnct 21U\\l Popiar Slrcei l'.O.B-m\\6\u0026amp;1 North Little Rock, AR 72 I 15-0687 501-77180S0 Fax: 501-771-8001 371-0100 J 1/22/02 3 D Please Reply 0 Please Recyci p. 1  .. ,.~,,. , Nov 22 02 U9:U~a NLRSD Student AFFa1rs Building Capacities 2002-2003 5017718001 I Location I Building Capacity I West j 1354 I East 11254 1-akewood Middie 1583 , R1dgeroad Middle j 638 i Rose City tvfiddle ! 4 34 I Poplar Street Middle i 752 I Argenta Academy I 1 iO i I Amboy Elementary 1379 j Belwood Elementary I 227 I I Boone Park Eiementary 1 468 i1c_r_e__smrn__o~_ d_E__e_l_e _tn_--m~ _ ry-:_~._-_-_-_-_-_-_-\n1_3-=_s-=_o-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_~-=Gienview Elementary ! 225 I II Indian Hills Elementary j 457 I _ Lakewood Elementary 1319 I I Lvnch Drive Elementary I 455 I I rvieadow Park Elementary 1208 I ! North Heights Elementary -f ?_0___4_ ______ ----1 I n~-1- U~ll Cl,-m-=-n+\u0026lt;\u0026gt;n, ? 0 2 11 ail'.. .1UU .l...,J.\"J. \u0026lt;vu~..._.J 1 _\u0026lt;'.'\\ I Pike View Elementary I 362 ~ I Seventh Street Elem_,en_,__t__ ary -+!-4__3__ ~0 ---=-==-------p-:0--,~-. p.2 ' Nov 22 02 0S:0ba NLRSD Student RFFa1rs 5017718001 p.3 2002-2003 School Building Capacity REDWOOD (without portable) CURRENT USE ONLY-ACTUAL CAPACITY NOT CALCULATED STEP 1- Identity each room by use and capacity. 6 Pre K X 18 = 108 RECEIVED  North Little Rock School District Employees 0~~2 2 2002 Pupil Enrollment by School October 1, 2002 Amboy Elementary Belwood Elen:-ientary 1 Boone Park Elementary  Crestwood Elementary Glenview Elementary Indian Hills Elementary IIL akewood Elementary IL ynch Drive Elementary Meadow Park Elementary I !North Heights Elementary 1 j Park Hill Elementary I Pike View Elementary I Seventh Street Fine Arts 11 Poplar Street Middle JJLakewood Middle jjR1dgeroad Middle I 1 Rose City Middle I Argenta Academy I I NLRHS-EasCt ampus I INLRHS-West~ ampus I DISTRICT2 003 TOTALS I District 2002 Totals II District 2001 To~ ~ I 0 v (' 7 North Little Rock Public Schools (Return to top of page) I October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 District Totals White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M Fl Ml Fl Ml F M F M F K 6] 128 110 I 1991 188 8 15 0 1 1 0 01 68 130 128 193 210 14 10 1 1 0 0 02 66 112 I 1041 212 I 2oall 1111 811 41 21 011 1 03 64l 115 104 197 198 19 131 1 II 011 1 II 0 04 691 125 117 219 201 13 11 2 3 0 0 05 673 124 129 205 195 12 1 6 1 0 1 0 06 679 119 116 198 219 11 131 1 II 011 21 0 07 697 127 134 222 190 12 al 211 21 0 0 08 46 152 243 183 8 6 2 1 0 0 \" http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/enrollment_ 2000.htm 11/20/02 09 755 164 I 16811 2121 181 I 1611 13 0 0 0 1 10 . 772 1751 15111 2391 181 Bl 101 3 2 1 1 11 i::nn 132 176 ~ 147 I 61 2 1 0 0 12 609 159 149 I 16911 311 31 1 3 0 2 Totals 8859 1761 1738 I 258311 2470~ 13811 12211 201 16 6 5 -- f39.5o% l 157.04% I 2.93% I I o.41% I 0.12% -  I I I I I I I I lI I I I I I I I I  OCTOBER 1, 2001 DISTRICT TOTALS. (Return to top of page) CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DISTRICT TOTALS GRADE SPAN: K-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC EffiEESIAN/PI IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL ~~I M I F M F I K 706 138 126 203 211 13 12 2 0 0 01 655 114 105 195 220 8 9 4 0 0 0 02 661 ~ 101 204 204 11 10 1 2 1 0 03 711 132 127 211 218 10 10 1 2 0 0 04 693 ~ 131 228 194 12 7 0 1 l 0 05 682 123 117 199 221 10 9 l 0 2 0 ' 06 664 110 104 226 205 10 6 0 2 1 0 I 07 765 165 153 236 188 10 9 3 1 0 0 08 682 ~ 151 199 170 13 5 0 0 0 I 0 I 09 660 155 128 210 152 9 4 1 0 0 I 1 I 10 877 194 194 242 218 6 13 3 5 0 2 11 668 158 156 154 187 9 3 0 l 0 I 0 I 12 625 156,~ 123 165 5 Bo 1 6 coEB TOTALS 9059 1845 7 2630 2553 126 107 ~DJ 4 Percentage 39.68% 57.21% 2.57% 0.42% 0.11% -C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/enrol1ment_2000.htm 11/20/02 OCTOBER 2, 2000 DISTRICT TOTALS (Return to top of page) CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DISTRICT TOTALS GRADE SPAN: K-12 I WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT 11 GRADE TOTAL IGJ F M F M F ~ M F 11 J II 164 [~ 8 71 76 3 2 G:J~ 0 0 I K II 669 I 117 100 I 213 221 9 3 ~ EB 647 124 105 I 194 209 7 6 EB 0 2 711 138 117 216 218 11 6 2 03 659 124 127 I 205 188 5 0 ~ 0 04 675 107 126 I 201 220 8 ~ 0 2 05 627 101 0 CJ:J 06 658 0 07 656 08 610 09 756 I 0 10 I 854 0 11 621 2 12 529 0 EX 0 0 SCHOOLS 8836 2574 2559 TOTALS 58.1% W/0 8003 16 09 2290 2262 91 8 6 7 GRD J/K 40.6% 56.9% 2.1% .3% .2% '--14~_B_s_ck_~l lJ Home I Fl Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.u~ http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/enrollment_2000.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~'\n.l?.1' : ,?(t OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA 16002-054 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 4 2 30 27 1 1 0 0 0 0 01 77 3 2 33 37 1 1 0 0 0 0 02 77 3 0 25 48 0 0 0 0 0 1 03 59 3 ,~ 25 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 04 53 1 1 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 75 4 3 35 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 406 18 9 ,\n,l. 174 197 4 3 0 0 0 1 7.39% 91.38% 1.72% 0.00% 0.25% ~1: 371 v ~1:-:J~_Bfa$j_ ck_~I \"\"' Home 7 I t I Up I b-:1 Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsq.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/boone _park_ elementary.htm 11/20/02 t' :\n$:\nL 7 C,, _\n)/ I ~ / 0 t::\u0026gt; 0 ~ -I ~ 7' -I 0 0 0 0 -I\n)'y I 0 '9 ~ 1-1 '/ 0 0 I C: ~I ~ 3 13 /7 6 tr) 0 C? e.\u0026gt; {,~ ~ (, ~ 4, 0 I 0 ~f\n? 9 // C, 0 ~7 (,, ~4, ~/ I 0 0 I 0 \u0026lt;g' a- I (b 0 1'1 19 I I 1.3 ? cO --II C. // /0 /\ni5 0 I r, 0 ) 1 /0 I .:\no /~ p\n:\n. I\nP '\" 0 -- -- ~ II lcf'/ 197 Ii I\nI~ I 0 I fc', -f~o- -r-,I /,o t ~? /I~ /0 /91 //ff' /\") /a I 0 /  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-050 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:AMBOY ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 58 9 4 19 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 56 9 9 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 55 6 6 27 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 52 7 6 21 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 04 64 14 9 17 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 52 10 9 22 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 !Totals II 33711 5511 4311 12211 1131 3 1 0 ole]JC] I29.oa I 169.73% I 1.19% 0.00% 10.00%1 I fj Home lit! Up I Fl Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/amboy _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only \"\"\"'\"'\" OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-053 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BELWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 30 3 4 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 26 6 2 6 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 22 6 3 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 22 4 5 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 38 8 4 13 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 05 20 5 4 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 159 32 22 54 48 0 3 0 0 0 0 33.96% 64.15% 1.89% 0.00% 0.00% .'o/\nCl~ ..3. j~ Back I l$j Home 1t1 I Up I t+I Next To place information here, contact webmoster@moil.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/belwood _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only .,  ',. .'.o/i OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-055 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:CRESTWOOD ELEl-:IENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 57 17 18 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 73 25 27 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 58 21 18 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 49 15 14 11 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 04 49 13 22 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 51 16 13 10 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 Totals 337 107 112 68 48 0 0 1 0 1 0 64.99% 34.42% 0.00% 0.30% 0.30% Back j fj /I? ,\n- Home j .-lt,_j--up--j~ F_~NIe _~-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/crestwood _ elementary .htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only 1,:' -L~\n1 11 OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-056 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS I COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK I SCHOOL:GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 24 6 1 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 29 5 5 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 35 2 3 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 31 3 3 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 29 1 5 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 38 4 2 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 186 21 19 82 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.51% 78.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -210 1-r~ -r-? ~j.-j~-Ba-ck-f~$I J Home 1t1-1 --up--Fl ~-NIe -xi-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd_,kl2.ar.us http:/ /www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/glenview _ elementary.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals ~:. ..~. ~.:.t-\" OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-057 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Totals M F M F M F M 79 27 29 10 11 0 1 0 71 26 25 8 9 0 1 1 75 24 30 7 11 0 0 2 66 25 26 8 6 0 1 0 75 29 25 10 7 0 1 1 66 21 28 6 10 0 1 0 432 152 163 49 54 0 5 4 72.92% 23.84% 1.16% 208% \u0026lt;:PIO / / ~'4~_Ba_ck_~j L.-LfJ~_Ho_me_j1_,' --t'_I _,_1_ U_p _ _,I ..._f--:...N,_eI _xi _ _, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/indian _hills_ elementary.htm Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0.00% 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA ij6002-058 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 61 24 26 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 56 15 20 11 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 02 56 22 14 9 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 03 49 17 9 11 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 04 42 13 12 13 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 05 53 16 15 7 11 1 3 0 0 0 0 Totals 317 107 96 54 45 7 6 1 1 0 0 64.04% 31.23% 4.10% 0.63% 0.00% Back fj Home 1 JI,t--,---1.- ,U. p---,/f.--F-r-1 -N-ext----, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.M_S http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/lakewood _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only -, r - OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-060 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 43 3 2 21 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 59 6 5 17 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 3 4 27 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 03 67 3 6 26 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 63 9 4 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 52 6 9 13 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 337 30 30 129 144 4 0 0 0 0 0 17.80% 81.01% 1.19% 0.00% 0.00% ?0 c:\u0026lt;7B -I ~1:--1~-Ba-ck-~@j j Home I J t I Up I ~~~I -Ne_xt_~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/lynch _drive_ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only ..,.s .l OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA lt6002-061 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 I Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 30 5 5 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 36 3 5 11 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 26 3 3 8 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 03 21 0 0 8 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 26 3 3 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 25 4 4 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 164 18 20 56 67 1 0 1 1 0 0 I 23.17% 75.00% 0.61% 1.22% 0.00% /~3 oB Back If $l Home I ~t~' _lU _p -~' F~-NIe _xt_~ To place information here, contact we~master@mail.nlrsd.k12.gr.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/meadow _park_ elementary.htrn 11/20/02 North Little Rock Sch-oo-l District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA ll6002-063 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN:K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 8 7 16 18 3 13 0 0 0 0 01 67 8 7 17 19 10 6 0 0 0 0 02 73 6 12 22 18 8 7 0 0 0 0 03 82 19 12 13 18 13 7 0 0 0 0 04 87 11 12 22 25 11 6 0 0 0 0 05 80 13 13 21 23 7 2 0 0 1 0 Totals 454 65 63 111 121 52 41 0 0 1 0 28.19% 51.10% 20.48% 0.00% 0.22% ~a.,., ?.J , Back I lJ Home II. ---tc-rl--up-'-'----,1.- --F~I_N_e~-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mall.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/north _heights_ elementary .htrn 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only ) ) Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals :\n})'c~ OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-064 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Totals M F M F M F M 38 10 8 8 11 0 0 0 41 13 8 10 10 0 0 0 39 10 4 14 11 0 0 0 41 6 11 10 13 0 1 0 45 12 7 16 8 2 0 0 58 12 12 18 15 0 1 0 262 63 50 76 68 2 2 0 43.13% 54.96% 1.53% 0.00% 11 a /-3/-1/ s 1.-J Back J f\u0026lt;tj Home J I t J Up J t4: J Next To place Information here, contact webmaster@mai1.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/park _hill_ elementary.htm Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 0 /% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I A' 0 0.00% 11/20/02 c\n.~ ..i:,i 7 iJ 5Y CJ -/ /fj I n r. .., 0 .::3 /.\n,.. // \u0026lt;!J c0 e:\u0026gt; 0 f\u0026gt;') ? /7 /~ /~ ? 0 0 n tX \u0026amp; / y 7 t? c\u0026gt; 0 c-\u0026gt; {\"\") 79 ~7 ~? /0 // 0 / 0 / 0 I _\n)? 7 / 0 0 0 C) 3 ?- /7 0 0 ('\") .,pe\u0026gt; ? ~ /\nl s? 0 0 t:.:\u0026gt; i tt.~ ~ 7 I (,e, If I. 0 f?:JJ. ~ /0 'B' /I 0 0 ~7 /,/ ~ ,\n)-# / ~ 0 0 \u0026lt;:O ) .J/~ I t:\n-\n5 /.\n! //.:\u0026gt; 19\u0026lt;j I '8 0 I :) /4,-,1, ,.JI~ r\n.\n,o /~~ J/D 11? r~)f' '8' 0 I 0 ~f'- eO /~ I North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~,. t OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-065 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 57 12 4 24 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 01 51 11 12 17 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 43 6 6 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 57 10 10 20 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 04 65 9 11 21 21 0 2 1 0 0 0 05 47 7 13 11 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 320 55 56 107 94 3 3 2 0 0 0 34.69% 62.81% 1.88% 0.63% 0.00% ~lii~-BIa -cfkj- ~I ,dol~--~3 Home 1t1 I Up IF ~-NIe -xt-~ To place information here, contact web__master@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/pike _view_ elementary .htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only .,,.~ - -. ,\"1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-069 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 43 0 0 21 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 45 0 1 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 50 0 1 26 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 52 3 1 22 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 55 2 2 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 57 6 4 27 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 302 11 9 145 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.62% 93.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% .\n?So\u0026gt;- o Back If j Home IIt~~ -UI- p -~, r:~-N--e-,x t-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/ seventh_ street_ fine_ arts.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~, '\"\"~-~- OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-070 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTYl:? ULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE Sl?AN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 278 80 88 59 47 1 1 1 1 0 0 08 307 91 102 65 43 2 2 1 1 0 0 Totals 585 171 190 124 90 3 3 2 2 0 0 61.71% 36.58% 1.03% 0.68% 0.00% lil Back I lJ\n?(/~ ___ ........,/()~--~ Home 11t j Up I F... .I. _.N.._.e.x.t. . ___, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/lakewood_midd1e.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only i']jc'~ OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-059 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 06 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 675 118 116 197 217 11 13 1 0 2 0 Totals 675 118 116 197 217 11 13 1 0 2 0 34.67% 61.33% 3.56% 0.15% 0.30% ~~_i/ ../1~ ~7 j, :4'.j.......__B _ac___k, fI $J Home 11 t I Up I b:I Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/poplar _ street_ middle.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only Ji:i!. . ,~:\n_. _ .\n_, OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-072 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 299 40 39 109 93 11 7 0 0 0 0 08 315 50 39 118 97 6 4 1 0 0 0 Totals 614 90 78 227 190 17 11 1 0 0 0 27.36% 67.92% 4.56% 0.16% 0.00% 1-il To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/ridgeroad _ rniddle.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA J6002-077 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK i SCHOOL:ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL GRA[E SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 123 8 7 55 51 0 0 1 1 0 0 08 127 11 12 61 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 250 19 19 116 94 0 0 1 1 0 0 15.20% 84.00% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% ~? c:!)/0 ~ 1.--4-r---B-ac~-k-. I ~@l~-H-om-e~~I ,-tI, ..,..1--up---.-.-lF -rl-N-ext-----, To place information here, contact webmaster@m_ail.nJ~d.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/rose _city_ middle.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2001 LEA #6002-07 6 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:ARGENTA ACADEMY GRADE SPAN: 06-12 HISPANIC IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F 05 0 0 06 5 0 3 0 0 0 07 21 2 15 2 0 0 0 08 20 4 0 10 6 0 0 0 09 41 3 23 5 CI] 0 0 10 54 20 0 0 11 43 7 16 10 0 12 28 5 5 10 8 0 0 0 TOTALS 213 37 19 100 52 3 ,, 0 Percentage 26.29% 71.36% 1.88% 0.00% 0.00% 9~ /9?- ~ 1--3 Back I k0 Home I llL Up =7 Fl Next To place Information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/argenta _ academy .htin 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only 1:1:-s -.l'f:IOIIIP. . ,i,l I OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-075 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NLRHS-EAST CAMPUS GRADF. SPAN: 09-10 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 722 157 164 197 176 15 12 0 0 0 1 10 626 148 138 177 143 7 6 3 2 1 1 Totals 1348 305 302 374 319 22 18 3 2 1 2 45.03% 51.41% 2.97% 0.37% 0.22% Back j @j To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/nlrhs-east_ campus.htrn 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only r:J:.?::~~: :ruw~,-., _\n-'::i-\\'.,~ r=- OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-076 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS I COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK I SCHOOL:NLRHS-WEST CAMPUS GRADE SPAN: 11-12 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv .Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 30 6 3 14 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 146 27 13 62 38 2 4 0 0 0 0 11 590 132 176 124 147 2 6 2 1 0 0 12 608 159 149 119 169 3 3 1 3 0 2 Totals 1374 324 341 319 359 8 14 3 4 0 2 48.40% 49.34% 1.60% 0.51% 0.15% ~6 r.,7g' ~'4~_B_ac_k_~I fj Home 11 t I Up To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/nlrhs-west_ carnpus.htm 11/20/02 !Grade 103 104 jo5 06 07 08 09 10 12 I Totals North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 District Totals i!Totals I II 6501 II 6871 II 6621 II 6481 II 6911 Black M F 195 219 190 18311 181 Hispanic 19 13 12 11 12 al 16 18 9 247011 1381 12.93% 1 13 11 6 13 8 6 13 10 6  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  0 0 0 0 0 3 0 16 6 0.12% 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 North Little Rock Public Schools j October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 - )'--------\n=========D=is=tr=ic=t=T\n=o=ta=ls=============== /,-----,,~-- 11 Grade I Totals K Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 18811 81 0 21011 14) 0 20811 111 1 19811 191 0 04 219 20111 131 0 05 205 19511 121 0 06 198 21911 11 1 0 07 222 19011 121 0 08 8 0 09 16 10 9 11 2 0 169 3 1 3 0 2 !Totals 2470 13 1221 2011 161 6 5 39.50% 12.93% 1 I o.41% I 10.12% 1  I I I I I I I I lI I I I I I I I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plan Provisions Schools will have a racial composition within 25% of the racial composition of the district as a whole. (NLRSD Plan, pg. 8) Findings While the NLRSD desegregation plan makes no reference to organizational level, district officials calculate racial balance for elementary and secondary schools separately each year based on the overall racial composition of each level. For the 1993-94 school year, the district is 52% black at the elementary level and 46% black at the secondary level. Calculations based on these figures yield a target range for elementary schools of 39% to 65% black, and 34% to 58% black for the secondary schools. All but two NLRSD schools fall within the acceptable ranges for racial balance\ntwo special schools both exceed the target range. Enrollment at the secondary alternative school is 70% black, and secondary enrollment at Baring Cross, a school for students who are developmentally disabled, is 71 % black, proportions which far exceed the target limits for black enrollment. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Plan Provisions PCSSD schools are to strive for a minimum black enrollment of 20%. Bayou Meta Elementary school is exempt due to its remote location. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 72) The goal of the plan is to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools. By the end of the implementation period, all PCSSD schools should be within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing districtwide average of blacks by organizational level. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 84, incorporating the Joshua Agreement, page 9) Findings To determine the upper end of the target racial balance range for PCSSD schools, we used a mathematical formula based on the parties' Joshua Agreement. PCSSD 1993-94 enrollment is 30% black at both the elementary and secondary level, meaning that the maximum black percentage at any PCSSD school this year should be 38%. Because the plan specifies 20% as the minimum black enrollment target, the racial balance range in PCSSD schools this year is between 20% to 38% black. Bates, College Station, Fuller, Harris, and Landmark elementaries exceed the maximum black enrollment. Fuller Junior High and Mills High School, with a 43% and a 48% black enrollment respectively, fail to achieve the 38% maximum limit. Lawson Elementary is the only school (other than the exempt Bayou Meta) with a black enrollment below the 20% Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I Findings While the NLRSD desegregation plan makes no reference to organizational level, district officials calculate racial balance for elementary and secondary schools separately each year based on the overall racial composition of each level. In the last year, the percentage of NLRSD enrollment comprised by blacks grew at both the elementary and secondary levels. For the 1994-95 school year, the district is 54% black at the elementary level and 49% black at the secondary level. Calculations based on these figures yield a target range this year for elementary schools of 40% to 68% black, and 37% to 61 % black for the secondary schools. The target ranges last year were 39% to 65% black at the elementary level and 34% to 58% black for secondary schools. The NLRSD desegregation plan excludes kindergarten children from mandatory bussing to achieve desegregation. The district maintains that the exclusion of these students from the desegregation assignment plan also excludes them from consideration in the racial balance calculations for each elementary school. However, in this report we counted kindergarten and four-year-old children just as we counted all students in the other elementary grades, and we calculated the school's racial balance with those students included. We followed this procedure because enrollment figures maintained by both LRSD and PCSSD include their four-year-old and kindergarten students. By including these grade levels in NLRSD's figures, we are able to produce a more complete and consistent picture of enrollment among all three Pulaski County school districts. All but three NLRSD schools fall within this year's acceptable ranges for racial balance: both the elementary and secondary alternative schools, along with Redwood Elementary School, exceed the target range. While the total enrollment at Redwood is 71 % black, which is three percentage points above the maximum, the school's racial balance would fall within the guidelines if kindergarten and four-year-old students were excluded. Enrollment at the elementary alternative school is 82% black, and 80% of the students at the secondary alternative school are black, proportions far outside the target limits for black enrollment. PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT Plan Provisions PCS SD schools are to strive for a minimum black enrollment of 20%. Bayou Meto Elementary school is exempt due to its remote location. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 72) The goal of the plan is to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCS SD schools. By the end of the implementation period, all PCS SD schools should be within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing districtwide average of blacks by organizational level. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 84, incorporating the Joshua Agreement, page 9) Findings To determine the upper end of the target racial balance range for PCS SD schools, we used a mathematical formula based on the parties' Joshua Agreement. This year, black students comprise a larger proportion of the PCSSD enrollment. at both the elementary and secondary levels, than in Page 7 Jan 31 03 04:26p NLRSD Student AFFa1rs 5017718001 Office of Student Affairs North L'tde Rock School District 2 700 Poplar S /reet North l.Jttle Rock. AR 72115-0687 (501) 771-8010 Francicalj. Jackson, Director DATE: I -3J-o3 TO: ___ c/7_!l_~_r~..__,~___'t \u0026gt;7__ _l,,_t__,_ 'uLV.. _ RE: _____________________ _ FAX J 7J-()j()Q ******************* FROM: __ 1-t_,.a1, _-,+_-I~-_ /G:J_t_fa_-_.Y_' _ _ 0 FAX: \"]1 /.-fOu I PHONE: ---------- COMENTS: _______________ _ This fax is o( page {s) including the cover page. If you do not receive all the pages, please call our of.ice at (501) 771-8010. p. 1 ,., (\\J Q.. .... 0 0 .C.X.\u0026gt;. r-r.-.-.. 0 II) Ill .L. . Ill \u0026lt;+- \u0026lt;+- a: ..., C Cl) \"'O .:., ., (/) Q (/) ~ ..J z: Q.. r-- (\\.J . T 0 (T) 0 .... (TJ C fV '7 SCHOOL: GRADE LEVEL PRE-K KINDERGARTEN FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH TOTAL ~ GRACES 1 -5 \u0026lt; \"- ........ ..,.. .... ..., 0 C) .. ' ,_ 0\ng WHITE M F # ) 6 % 1% 3% # % # % # % # % # % # % # J 6 % t% 3% ELEMENTARY SCHOOELN ROLLMENT TOTAL BLACK TOTAL WHITE M F BLACK 9 tCS 913 203 4% 48% 44% 92% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 lCS\ne 203 4% 48% 44\".4 92% 2002-2003 OTHER TOTAL M F OTHER TOTAL 7 2 9 221 3% 1% 4% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '7 2 9 221 3% 1% 4% Pages PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT FOR 1 OCTOBER 2002 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 01 Adkins Elementary 6003090 PK* 6 4 5 3 3 ~ 0\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1432","title":"Program correspondence and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-10/2004-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["Program correspondence and reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1432"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":344,"next_page":345,"prev_page":343,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4116,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}